Review: K Policies - Policy KA : School/Community Relations Goals, Policy KBA: School/Parent Relations Goals, Policy KCB: Community Involvement in Decision Making, and Policy KDB : Public’s Right to Know.

Transcript (~19 min @ 1:10:45)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 1:09:50 Speaker 4: Good evening. This is the Policy and Planning subcommittee, and tonight we have four policies returning for their second read and potential first vote, if the committee would move that way. These policies were last heard on the 19th of May for a first reading, where they were displayed alongside MASC model policies, in most cases. One policy did not have a MASC policy. Any further, I'll highlight that as we work through it. And at this point, we've convened with Ms. Lindquist, our attorney, on some questions around some of the policies, and she has offered some language updates that are included in the packet. I'll take these up one by one just for edification of the committee and the public, so that we look at each one individually. Starting with Policy KA. This policy is- Thank you School Community Relations Goals. And in the packet, it's aligned next to the current Melrose Public Schools policy, last reviewed in 2013, and the current model MASC policy on the right side. It's been highlighted what the differences are, so if members have questions, comments, or would like to move forward with our policy or the MASC policy, or some combination of the both. I think in my review of this, it doesn't seem like there's a change to make here. But that's one member's recommendation to others, so I'm happy to hear comments on the KA policy at this point, or a motion if that's where people want to go.

▶ 1:11:26 Speaker 2: Ms. Leo. So I want to make sure I am understanding. I think what you are saying is that the policy on the left is what, from your perspective, we would want to maintain- ... not adding the MASC proposed kind of recognition component. Mm-hmm. I, in my review, actually noted the same thing, that I think recognition and celebration are important in maintaining positive relations. But it feels like maybe it's not appropriate for policy, it's more in the superintendent's purview to lift up as part of the announcements of the superintendent and in the day-to-day management of the district, rather than in formal policy. So that's kind of my read, that our proposed policy on the left-hand side makes sense as is.

▶ 1:12:09 Speaker 4: Thank you. Further comments from members?

▶ 1:12:16 Speaker 4: Is there an action the committee would like to take on the policy? A motion...

▶ 1:12:21 Speaker 6: Motion to approve- Ms. Driscoll ... the recommended changes.

▶ 1:12:25 Speaker 4: Motion to approve the current policy as it stands in the handbook?

▶ 1:12:31 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: Yes. Or no, the one on the right-hand side.

▶ 1:12:34 Speaker 4: The MASC version? Yes. Including the recognition paragraph.

▶ 1:12:40 Speaker 1: Is there a second? And I'll go.

▶ 1:12:46 Speaker 1: I'll second it for the purposes of discussion, and be curious to hear Ms. Driscoll's thoughts on it.

▶ 1:12:51 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: Yeah. And I'm perfectly fine going either way. I just see this as a core value, as a value of expression. And I think it's nice when the committee can explain and speak to the values of the district, and then the implementation piece, how the superintendent may or may not want to deploy that. Mm-hmm. I see that sort of as a separate piece. But I thought that your point was compelling about recognition programs being important. And so I do see those as very different things because I think this language is very general. So, I just thought that was an interesting point that I'm glad you brought up.

▶ 1:13:39 Speaker 4: So the motion on the table is to adopt the MASC version, or to add the one bullet, or adopt the version entirely? Just- To add the one bullet. Add the one bullet. As a number four, perhaps.

▶ 1:13:54 Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I'll continue my second on that.

▶ 1:13:56 Speaker 4: Okay. Any further comment from the committee? Mm-hmm. Ms. Leo?

▶ 1:14:01 Speaker 2: Just to respond, I think it is good and important to talk about these things. The worry that I have is that by including here that the district is committed to sustaining these things, it potentially creates some kind of unfunded mandate or sort of expectation of programming, and I didn't want to do that. While I do absolutely appreciate the values aligned policies and statements, a less is more approach for policy is sort of how I tend to go, keep it as streamlined as we can when we can. So that was my thinking there.

▶ 1:14:38 Speaker 4: If there's no further comment from the committee, I do have some thoughts on it. I expressed earlier that I would recommend the current policy sustained, and I actually agree a lot with Ms. Leo. I very much think that we need to always find ways to recognize the work of our staff and our students and all of our community members in the school community. I do struggle with the idea of implementing it through a policy that is sustaining for, in this case, the last time we reviewed this policy was 2013, so that's 13 years that this would have been in there. And I just think about the cycles of change that have happened during that time. Whether this is funded or unfunded is, I think, a tremendous question to think about in a recognition program. Through my day work, I run a recognition program. It is not cheap. It costs a lot of time and money to run a recognition program. It's not to say that a recognition program that we could come up with wouldn't be sustainable in some fashion. But I think, I would still recommend the current policy, and be open to hearing, in the future if the superintendent identifies a way of bringing forth a recognition program outside of a policy, I would be very encouraged to hear more about that. But that would be my recommendation at this point. If there's no further questions, I can call the vote, or if there's further comments.

▶ 1:16:03 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: No, I was going to say- Ms. Driscoll ... I think you both have very compelling arguments, and I would withdraw my motion.

▶ 1:16:07 Speaker 4: I agree to that. Okay. Is there another motion on the table? Ms. Leo?

▶ 1:16:13 Speaker 2: I would move to keep the policy on the left-hand side that was last voted in on 2013.

▶ 1:16:20 Speaker 4: Great. Is there a second? Ms. Holleran. So, motion is set by Ms. Leo and seconded by Ms. Holleran. All those in favor? Oh, sorry, Mr. Kelley.

▶ 1:16:29 Speaker 1: Yeah. I just have a quick question. Will we update these dates, I'm assuming- Yes ... as a review, just because I-

▶ 1:16:36 Speaker 4: Yes. All right. Thank you. So, I don't know if we have to incorporate that into the motion. I think that I've always felt like there's a technical piece that goes when the website gets updated, but yes. Yep. Okay. So the document would reflect a 5/19 first reading, a 6/23 second reading, and first vote. Yeah. So, with that, all those in favor? All those against? And one absent. So we have six in favor and one absent on policy KA getting their first vote on that. We'll come back to that probably at our next meeting where we have that typically in the consent agenda for a second vote. Moving on to KBA. This is the school parent/guardian relations goals. In large part, just outlining this policy, the MASC policy and the current Melrose Public Schools policy are nearly identical. The only piece that's highlighted in the document, and I would suggest that from my perspective, this is a place where we could put some focus and potentially incorporate this language, is the language highlighted in matters of student conduct in the second paragraph. It's a small addition to make sure that there's a definition of the shared responsibilities there and what it incorporates. But that's the only change that's highlighted in this document as it stands right now. Are there questions, comments from members?

▶ 1:18:02 Speaker 2: Ms. Leo? Sorry. Apparently, I have a lot to say about policy. I think that it makes sense to add that yellow piece. I did note that the title is actually slightly different too between the two. With the school parent relations, we use parent/guardian throughout, and I think in an effort to be inclusive of all of our family structures, it would be nice to retitle this as school/parent guardian, or school-parent/guardian, however we would like, but include guardians.

▶ 1:18:36 Speaker 4: Ms. Holleran.

▶ 1:18:37 Speaker 3: I would agree. That was going to be one of the things that I said. I think throughout any policy that we update, it should always be parent/guardian. And just reiterating the matters of student conduct, if we're looking at the student holistically and trying to develop them holistically, I think student conduct is really important to put into the policy as that's part of learning and achievement in school and in the classroom. So...

▶ 1:19:11 Speaker 4: All right. Before we get to a motion, is there any further comment? One reaction to the comment is also perhaps a simpler term is caregiver, if we want to use the term caregiver throughout, whether it's referring to a family or parent, guardian, caregiver, maybe a mayor.

▶ 1:19:29 Jen Grigoraitis: While I think that's a more inclusive term, I am going to push back because I do think parent and guardian actually comes with some legal rights that a caregiver may not have. So I think we want to be careful around, particularly when we're talking about communication regarding student information, that I think there are many people who might identify as a caregiver but may not- ... within the confines of the Millrose Public Schools, have access to information. So I get it, but I feel like we probably legally should stick with-- I would recommend we stick with parent/guardian.

▶ 1:19:57 Speaker 4: Okay. Very good point.

▶ 1:20:02 Speaker 1: Mr. Kelley. Is that consistent, Ms. Berman, with how we do it with all of our internal communications, parent/guardian?

▶ 1:20:08 Speaker 5: I guess it depends on what we're doing, right? Yeah. So, I think when we talk about handbooks and different things, that we often go parent/guardian. Okay. Can I ask a question on a policy? So, I just wonder, are we consulting with parents when we talk about student conduct? We're making them aware. However, are we consulting with them on next steps or what a potential remediation or consequence would be? Does that look the same as we're talking about their student progress, we're talking about their achievement, we're talking about their development, but are we actually... I don't want to say partnering with parents to make decisions on discipline. That's how I read that, and maybe that's just my interpretation as an educator. So I just am curious as to what that means, because I don't know that we would always guarantee that we would consult with a parent on a consequence that maybe-- Sometimes parents don't always agree with something- ... a consequence we may give their child. And so if we're using that word consult, that seems to me that we're consulting on an outcome, and I'm not sure that that's what the intention of this is. I just wanted to put that out there.

▶ 1:21:33 Speaker 4: Thank you. Ms. Holleran?

▶ 1:21:36 Speaker 3: Sorry, just a question, just for clarification.

▶ 1:21:43 Speaker 3: To clarify consulting. Consulting with families regarding student progress, achievement, and development, do you feel that that is done and applicable, or are you looking at consults for everything following that?

▶ 1:22:01 Speaker 5: I guess the only thing I have in question is the highlighted piece. Are we consulting about student conduct? Because when I think about student conduct, I think about potential outcome. Yep. Like a consequence, for lack of a better word. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And I'm not sure that consult is the right word for that. Or if that belongs in that policy. But sorry to throw a wrench in that.

▶ 1:22:25 Speaker 4: If I may, just sort of my reading as well, and I certainly understand your point, Superintendent, of that is sort of in the context of the sentence, thinking about the pieces that are intended to be consulting, and it speaks to shared responsibilities. I didn't read it as an indication of discipline or an outcome discipline, more so a discussion between educators and families about their student and conduct that they may have a role in changing or participating in the growth of the student with- Mm-hmm ... versus a disciplinary outcome. I see those as separate. If the policy isn't clear, though, I think that's a question for us to consider and ponder if this is the right language for implementation.

▶ 1:23:15 Speaker 2: Ms. Leo. So, another thought is I got stuck a little on the conduct word initially, too, because there is a formal code of conduct. So another thought was I was wondering about whether it is academic and social emotional development, or development and behavior. That there is consultation around the actions and behaviors of students, the outcome of application of the code of conduct. If that feels like it is harder to maintain, I can imagine not wanting to use that word. So just another consideration. I'm not sure where I fall on that.

▶ 1:23:52 Speaker 4: Thank you. I saw Chair Kelley.

▶ 1:23:54 Speaker 1: Sure. So just checking in maybe where we are in this. This is our first read, right? Our informational read.

▶ 1:23:59 Speaker 4: This is our second read. This is

▶ 1:24:01 Speaker 1: our second. Yes. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Okay. So we didn't catch that, then. Yeah. Okay.

▶ 1:24:12 Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

▶ 1:24:18 Speaker 5: Maybe a suggestion, just to piggyback on what you said. Whether you do that social emotional development and patterns of behavior, that would be something that we would want to share and collaborate, as opposed to conduct. I just think as an educator, maybe as a teacher and former assistant principal, my brain is stuck there. But yeah.

▶ 1:24:38 Speaker 4: So perhaps some consideration around behavior versus conduct.

▶ 1:24:41 Speaker 5: Patterns of behavior as opposed to

▶ 1:24:45 Speaker 1: conduct. Chair Kelley. So I'm just wondering if it would be appropriate maybe to hold this in the subcommittee for now, and we can let the administration have some discussions. They can coordinate through Mr. Hartman on a recommendation for a future review in July or August.

▶ 1:25:06 Speaker 4: Absolutely. No problem there. We can certainly reconsider that piece as there was some interest in including something to that effect, but perhaps the language needs to be ironed out and- brought forward again. So, if there's no objection, we'll move on to the next piece. This is the KCB policy, the community involvement in decision-making. I just wanted to note in particular that MASC no longer has this as part of their policy handbook. And so, this version on the right is taken from Arlington, which MASC provides on their website, that Arlington still has this in their policy handbook, but it does not look like this is necessarily a recommended policy from MASC anymore. So with that, I think we can take a look at it. The policies are fairly aligned between the Arlington version and the Melrose version, but certainly want to consider members' thoughts on where this policy goes.

▶ 1:26:07 Jen Grigoraitis: Mayor? Thank you. The fact that this is no longer in the MASC manual resonates with me. There's a lot of editing I would want to do to this policy. So, for purposes of discussion, I would make a motion to remove this policy for Melrose.

▶ 1:26:25 Speaker 6: Second.

▶ 1:26:26 Speaker 4: So, the mayor has made a motion to retire this policy from Melrose. That's a nicer word. In line with MASC's retirement, and seconded by Ms. Driscoll. Are there comments on the policy, on the motion? Seeing no comments, all those members in favor? Against? And one absent. So, we have six in favor and one absent on the first vote of that. So again, the document will reflect-- Well, actually, I guess if we're retiring it, the document will reflect nothing if that moves forward at a second vote at a future date. So, we would expect to see that in the consent agenda as that moves forward. Now, the final policy, KDB, public's right to know. So, this policy reflected a few things that I addressed with Attorney Lindquist prior to the meeting. One of the major changes, and again, going back to the dates of review on this, 2013, there was a major public records change that took place. I believe it was 2018 or 2019, which passed through the legislature and set up a lot of different aspects of the public records law. So, Attorney Lindquist worked on the language here to make sure that we are clearly reflecting the public records and open meeting law in the policy. Those are the call-outs in red. Other than that, the MASC policy is fairly similar in large respects to our policy. But again, just reflecting that we want to make sure that obviously the Melrose Public Schools is following the public records law. It's just making sure that our policy reflects that clearly. So, there is a process there. There's a public records officer that is identified across the city, and that is how those types of requests are processed. So, calling that out, and that's those language changes that are reflected. But from that, I'll let members consider, and if there's comments, open to that at this point.

▶ 1:28:24 Speaker 4: Seeing no hands and great excitement. I see Chair Kelley.

▶ 1:28:28 Speaker 1: Thank you very much. I have a question on our last-- Well, it's not one of the changes, but it's just on the last paragraph, which is that the superintendent will develop and maintain a plan that sets out the guidelines, and it'll be reviewed by the committee on an annual basis. I'm not sure, feel free to, somebody, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know that we've been reviewing these.

▶ 1:28:53 Speaker 4: Thank you. Is that an accurate statement, or? Actually, I did discuss this with Attorney Lindquist, and this piece tends to be included in our handbooks. Got it, okay. So, as we bring forward the handbooks each year, the phone numbers are updated. That is reviewed through the handbook process of any information about how the outreach there would occur, would occur in the handbooks. That stands as the school district's policy. Am I stating that correctly? That's how it's implemented, is through the handbooks. Great. Thank you very much. That we approve each year.

▶ 1:29:22 Speaker 4: I saw Ms. Leo first.

▶ 1:29:25 Speaker 2: I think that the edits make sense. I appreciate the concreteness of what it is that we commit to doing. So, I would like to move, if we are ready to do that, I would like to move to approve the left-hand side with the edits of our policy, the edited policy.

▶ 1:29:46 Speaker 4: Second. Great. We have a motion and a second to approve the current policy amended as seen in the school committee package. Are there any comments on the motion? Seeing no comments, all those in favor? We have six. All those against, none, and one absent. So, six in favor and one absent, and that concludes the work of policy and planning. We'll see some of those in our packet next time.