Review: Policy KBA: School/Parent Relations Goals

Transcript (~15 min @ 31:06)

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

▶ 30:53 Speaker 7: Good evening. This is the Policy and Planning subcommittee. We have three items on the agenda tonight. We're going to review one of the policies that we put on hold at our last meeting, and we are going to discuss our kindergarten admittance policy, and then finally we'll have a short discussion on our strategic planning process as we move forward. So starting off with a review of Policy KBA. This would be, again, potentially for a first vote. We've reviewed it a couple of times. There were some feedback at our last meeting around incorporating some of the language that MASC now includes around student conduct. There was some feedback from the superintendent about a desire to avoid unintended consequences of putting student conduct into a policy like this. And Attorney Lindquist went back and took the committee feedback, the feedback to the superintendent, and drafted some new language that you'll see in the packet. At this point in time, we can look at that language, consider it. We can also consider whether it even needs to be added at all. I've been reflecting on this policy and thinking about just what do we add with new language. I think the underlying goal of this policy is to establish an underpinning of communication between educators and families about how students are doing, where they can weigh in, and help their students progress. I think that's the general theme of the policy, and supporting the district's procedures as they work with that. And I think the reference to student development is sufficient in a lot of ways to encompass what it means to have a conversation with a family about whether there's a student conduct issue or a student behavior issue in the classroom, and how that's developing with the assistance of the family and the educators working together. So, I think looking at the language, considering the language that Attorney Lindquist has put together, I think there's certainly an avenue to think that maybe we don't need to add new language if it doesn't enhance the policy. So at that, I leave it with the discretion of the committee. But I'm leaning towards thinking about whether we actually need to add that, and if there's comments and feedback, we can go from there. But at this point, it's up to the committee. Open for discussion

▶ 33:13 Speaker 7: or a motion. Ms. Rozzie-Thomas.

▶ 33:17 Speaker 2: Yeah, I wasn't here at the last meeting when the first discussion happened. Mm-hmm. So, I can see there's benefit to less is more with language sometimes, but I also think even with this new language that we put in about any student conduct concerns as appropriate. So when you're talking with parents, which I do in my day job all the time about student behavior, you have to be really, really careful about sharing anything about other- Mm-hmm ... students' behavior other than their own. And then of course, there's the desire from any parent and any human being- Mm-hmm ... to want to know more if their child is involved in it. Yep. So I think this says about any student conduct concerns as appropriate, right? So it doesn't talk about confidentiality. It does mention state law. And absolutely, schools should be in close contact with families and parents and guardians and caretakers of kids. So, that's really important to say, but it's tricky when you say generally student conduct. Mm-hmm. Because anyone could interpret that as, "Well, now I need to know about all the student conduct concerns that I have in every school that I've ever heard anything about." Right? I think I have a little bit of issue with the genericness that that message sends. It's wide, not narrow, and it, in my mind, needs to be much more narrow, focused on the particular student that we're responsible for in relation to the family. So.

▶ 35:00 Speaker 7: Thank you. Yeah. Ms. Holleran?

▶ 35:03 Speaker 8: Thanks. That's, I think, a good point, Ms. Rozzie-Thomas. And to go back to the last meeting, the idea was that if you're a parent, you would want to be informed of your student's conduct if something were to come up. Yep. But then Superintendent Berman brought up the point that we need to be aware of how involved parents are in that, with just the language being vague. And I was hoping to see conduct in this, but looking at it now, I'm concerned it doesn't add anything to the policy. If we're going to say that student development is also their conduct and their behavior, I think that covers that. And I Consistent with state law, I do think we are going to be consistent with state law, whether it's in the policy or not. Right. It is state law. So to your point, Mr. Hartman, I'm not sure that this sentence adds anything that would be helpful in the policy.

▶ 36:38 Speaker 7: Great. Any more comments? I can make one clarifier, too, just in terms of how it's presented. The current language wouldn't include "and matters of student conduct." That was the suggestion from the MASC, the policy guide. So the crossed-out language and the underlined language are new to the policy in terms of discussion. The policy would end at "student development" if we adopted the current policy and reauthorized it.

▶ 37:07 Speaker 7: So at this point, we could make a motion to have a first vote if people are in favor of taking a certain direction, perhaps in terms of keeping this current policy. Is there a motion? Mayor? No. Question.

▶ 37:19 Speaker 8: I just want to make sure I'm understanding.

▶ 37:23 Jen Grigoraitis: Can I say back what I think you're saying, Ms. Rozy-Thomas? Yes, of course. So your concern is that the added language allows it to be too broad, where basically someone could say, "I'm really curious about student conduct," period. Yeah. But I guess I read this a little differently, which is, I think we're very, particularly as appropriate, it would never be appropriate for us to share information about a child who isn't yours with you. I already think there are guardrails around the fact that we would not do that. We don't share information about students with people who aren't their caregiver or legal guardian. I know the intent around this was to clarify that we're not consulting with parents and guardians around matters of discipline and conduct, that we're not calling you necessarily to get your feedback as a parent about how we're handling discipline. Is that a correct summary, Superintendent Berman? So I don't know if that... But I'm just thinking, people may want what you're-- We know they want that. Right. But we would never, even whether or not that sentence is in there, we would never provide that because we wouldn't share that information.

▶ 38:28 Speaker 2: I would hope so, but I think it's tricky. Sorry to jump in, but is it okay if I go further or respond to the-

▶ 38:35 Speaker 7: Yes, if you'd like to respond, Ms. Rozy, that's fine.

▶ 38:37 Speaker 2: I think it's the language of "any student conduct concerns," that phrase- Okay, that's the piece. Okay ... to me is very non-specific to the individual student. That is the student that's either related to the parent or the guardian is in charge of, right? So if we say "any," then that can be misinterpreted, I think in terms of, even though it says "consistent with state law," so we know that confidentiality would apply. You only talk about the student. But when you're talking about bullying investigations and all the things that bring other kids into it, and I just think we have to be really careful about, obviously, this is why we discuss policy, all the language that we use and how it implies and how it reads. That, to me, is about any student conduct concerns. So could you have someone who's really upset and say, "But in your policy, it says, 'Any student conduct concerns.'" It's just a little... You know what I mean. Yeah. I understand. We're going to have, in all of our school specific rule books, we have laws listed at the end of them. So we should be covered either way. Right. But I just think that language isn't as good as it could be.

▶ 39:56 Speaker 7: That's all. I saw Ms. Driscoll, and then Chair Kelley.

▶ 39:59 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: I appreciate all that. I do think that in policy, having sort of the broader language allows the superintendent to perform the how or to execute the how. So to me, a lot of this is in how you train staff and what your in your onboarding and in your yearly, however you do professional development around training, that it be emphasized how this is executed. And I think then it could kind of do both things. So we say the what, and then the superintendent does the how. Yeah. So that's why I'm comfortable with this language.

▶ 40:45 Speaker 1: Mr. Kelley? Sure. Thank you very much. I think there's a couple of ways to handle it, but I'd be inclined to make a motion to approve. People can vote however they want. There would still have to be a second vote, and there would be time between now and the next vote for people to consult with Ms. Lindquist if they felt the need to make sure the language is what it should be, although this was drafted by her in accordance to all of her knowledge of laws. So I guess I would make a motion to approve as is.

▶ 41:14 Speaker 3: Second.

▶ 41:15 Speaker 7: Second by Ms. Driscoll. Discussion?

▶ 41:18 Speaker 3: I want to clarify. "As is" means with the... Tell me what you mean. Make sure I understand

▶ 41:27 Speaker 1: what that means. The crossed-out language and the underlined language.

▶ 41:30 Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.

▶ 41:31 Speaker 7: Yeah. No. So adding the sentence that Ms. Lindquist drafted. Okay. Thank you. Further discussion? Ms. Rozy-Thomas?

▶ 41:40 Speaker 2: I would just add a suggestion. So school personnel will keep parents, guardians, caretakers informed about their student conduct concerns as appropriate. That's all I would suggest.

▶ 41:55 Speaker 7: Would that be accepted as a friendly amendment, Mr. Kelley? Can you say it again?

▶ 41:59 Speaker 2: Sure. Consistent with state law, school personnel will keep parents, guardians, caretakers informed about their potential student conduct concerns of their child or th-- It just needs to become possessive instead of it being a general thing.

▶ 42:21 Speaker 1: Did I hear you say things greater than parents?

▶ 42:28 Speaker 5: So, yeah. So can I jump in here? Yeah. Okay. So I had a conversation with Attorney Lindquist regarding this. So we do need to keep it as parent/guardians. Yep. We can't add the word- ... caretakers- Yep ... just because these are the legal terms that- Yeah ... follow through there. That's fair. So I was actually along the lines of, I think, what you just said in terms of stating something like, "Consistent with state law, school personnel will keep parents/guardians informed about their student's conduct concerns as appropriate." And I think that that may be able to blend and be successful, would be my suggestion.

▶ 43:03 Speaker 2: That sounds great to me.

▶ 43:04 Speaker 7: Is that accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and the seconder?

▶ 43:07 Speaker 1: Yes. Yep. Okay.

▶ 43:09 Speaker 7: Yes. Are there any more comments? I have a comment for... Okay. I think the way that I'm really looking at this is when we make a policy change, and before I take a vote on it, the change should enhance what we're putting in there. I think some of our discussion tonight kind of indicates that maybe it's not clear if it enhances. Does it provide a new tool for the district to train teachers on? Does it provide teachers a new way of communicating with students about something that's more clear? I'm not sure it reaches that threshold for me when I'm thinking about the language, as we've reviewed a couple of different rounds of looking at this. And even the starting point that MASC includes in their new draft and matters of student conduct doesn't come with a note beside it telling us what is the intent of that. I think the intent is to foster dialogue between families and students about how the students are progressing. I think that's captured in the underlying policy. I appreciate the work that Attorney Lindquist has put in, and the back and forth, and the changes we've proposed here at the table, but I'm just not sure that looking at it here, it enhances the policy or enhances what our educators can do with it. It might cause further confusion with families in how they approach situations of conduct, as many students go through conduct issues, big and small, and I wouldn't want to add confusion to the classroom or to our superintendent's office around what this policy is indicating for them to follow. So, that's my standpoint at this point, is I think we can move forward with a vote, but that was my comment in the discussion element. Final discussion from Ms. Leah.

▶ 44:51 Speaker 3: Sorry, one more comment now, kind of putting all these things together. What Mayor Grigoret has said about last meeting really resonated with me with regard to the fact that matters of student conduct are not for consultation. So I think what this policy amendment does offer is a clarification to personnel, to staff, that there is consultation on these matters and informing on the other matters. So in that regard, I do think it is additive with the informed language. So I do find that compelling, so thank you for adding that to the conversation.

▶ 45:29 Speaker 7: Appreciate that comment. So all those in favor of... Can we hit answer? All those in favor of the amended policy? So did I count six? And all those against, I'll say no. That moves forward six to one. We'll see that come back for a second vote next go around.

▶ 45:59 Speaker 7: All right. Moving on to our second agenda item for policy and planning. This is the JF admissions policy, so this is regarding kindergarten admissions. There are some amendments in the packet, and I'll allow the superintendent to do a brief introduction about that and where that's coming from. It's to address some confusion around that.