2023-04-25 - School Board Work Session

0:00 (upbeat music)

0:30 (upbeat music continues)

3:00 (upbeat music)

3:30 (upbeat music continues)

12:49 - Good afternoon.

12:51 The April 25th, 2023 board work session is now in order.

12:56 Call roll call, please.

12:57 - Mr. Season.

12:58 - Here.

12:59 - Ms. Wright.

13:00 - Here.

13:00 - Mr. Trent.

13:01 - Here.

13:02 - Ms. Campbell.

13:03 - Here.

13:04 - Ms. Jenkins.

13:05 - Here.

13:05 - Please stand for the pledge.

13:08 - I pledge allegiance to the flag

13:10 of the United States of America

13:12 and to the Republic for which it stands,

13:15 one nation, under God, indivisible,

13:17 with liberty and justice for all.

13:22 - The first topic is board member

13:23 district boundary adjustments.

13:26 Board members, I would say we got a huge agenda.

13:27 So if we can, you’ll see me moving pretty quickly.

13:30 If we can go with that, it’d be great.

13:32 Everybody good?

13:33 All right.

13:35 - Mr. Chair. - Sarah Lee.

13:37 - Yes, let me introduce Sarah Lee Morrissey.

13:39 Sarah is with Sarah Lee Morrissey Consulting

13:41 and she is working with WXYZ, our, I’m sorry, WXY.

13:46 (laughing)

13:47 I knew I was going to do that.

13:49 Our planning consultant firm,

13:50 and they are going to give you kind of a snapshot

13:53 of what they heard regarding board member redistricting

13:55 as a prelude for the board’s discussion

13:57 as to where we go from here.

13:58 So Sarah Lee, I will turn it over to you.

14:01 - All right, thank you very much, Sue.

14:03 It’s a pleasure to be here, board members.

14:07 I’m Sarah Lee Morrissey.

14:08 I am your neighbor.

14:10 I live right up the street in Volusia.

14:13 So I’m happy to be here in person.

14:16 And yes, Z does follow WXY, but not in their company name.

14:21 And so with me this afternoon are my colleagues,

14:28 Raphael Loud, and also Adam Lubinski is also with us,

14:35 although I may need somebody.

14:39 We have to admit, there he is, all right.

14:47 Okay, so give me just a second to get this.

14:58 There we go.

15:02 And okay, all right.

15:08 So based on the direction that Ms. Hahn received from you

15:12 at your March 22nd meeting,

15:15 she enlisted the assistance of WXY,

15:18 who is an annual planning consultant with you,

15:22 and authorized WXY and myself to proceed

15:28 to have conversations with each of you

15:30 about board redistricting and to also speak

15:34 with the supervisor of elections,

15:36 come forward with our findings,

15:39 and hopefully have some discussion today

15:42 that gives further direction on how you want

15:45 to move forward.

15:48 So today’s agenda is relatively short.

15:54 And as you know that I will go through each of these items

16:00 with you and start off with just summarizing

16:05 that my colleague Raphael and I were able to meet,

16:09 or rather speak with each of you,

16:13 some by phone, some by Zoom,

16:15 but we were able to have conversation.

16:18 And then I was also able to have a conversation

16:22 with Brevard’s supervisor of election, Mr. Tim Bobanek.

16:29 And in each of our conversations with board members,

16:34 we focused a series of questions on three subject areas.

16:39 Each member’s district, specific district,

16:44 redistricting approach, criteria,

16:49 and then lastly, public engagement.

16:53 And as you might expect,

16:57 because I know you’ve talked about this before,

17:00 everyone raised different concerns.

17:04 And particularly when we’re talking

17:06 about individual board members’ districts,

17:09 there’s some unique concerns and/or characteristics

17:12 of your districts, which we heard about,

17:15 and then we discussed different criteria.

17:19 And as you would expect,

17:26 different emphasis is placed on different criteria

17:29 by each board member.

17:32 So let’s take a few minutes if we can

17:35 to talk about redistricting criteria,

17:39 and also included in this table are some engagement options.

17:44 And as we move through the presentation,

17:47 we’ll talk a little bit more about engagement options.

17:51 And I wanna make clear, we did not ask any board member

17:56 to place a priority on criteria.

17:59 What you see here in this table is a summary

18:02 of what we heard in speaking to board members

18:07 in terms of whether a board member felt strongly

18:10 about something or perhaps a particular issue

18:14 was not even raised by a board member.

18:17 So you may not see a sum of five

18:21 as you go across each of these criteria.

18:24 And that would be because perhaps that particular criteria

18:28 was just not brought up in conversation.

18:33 So no surprise to I think any of you,

18:37 there’s not a lot of agreement,

18:39 but I am very happy to say we were able to find one criteria

18:43 of which everyone agreed on.

18:45 And that is that no one’s ready to move forward

18:48 with seven board members.

18:50 So I took that as a positive sign.

18:55 There was also not really referenced here,

19:00 but when we spoke about to what every board member

19:06 acknowledged and understood

19:08 that balancing overall population

19:11 is the minimum legal criteria.

19:14 So I would say that was a point of agreement as well.

19:17 And then because a lot of work has already been done

19:21 at the county commission and you’ve seen

19:24 in Sue’s presentation at your March meeting

19:28 where that deviation fell for the county commission,

19:32 which is right hovering at eight and a half percent,

19:36 that there was some general consensus

19:39 that that is a reasonable deviation as you move forward.

19:46 And I know that you’ve had discussion and direction

19:52 that it needs to come under 10% and you’re now over 10%.

19:59 There were some other common threads

20:03 while not necessarily everyone in agreement

20:07 or the degree of which a board member felt something

20:12 was important or not important at all,

20:14 but there were some common threads

20:17 as I think you would expect.

20:20 And some of those have to do with the distribution

20:24 of students and also the number of schools

20:28 across board members’ districts,

20:32 diversity within the population

20:36 and how it portrays itself across each of your districts.

20:41 Obviously there is consensus from a few of you

20:44 about county commission boundaries

20:48 and also some discussion about communities in general.

20:55 When we move into discussing public engagement,

21:01 there’s some level of agreement

21:09 that the degree to which you move forward

21:14 with something beyond a board meeting

21:17 where the public is invited to speak

21:19 is just part of your normal course of business.

21:25 I would say that to the degree

21:27 those of you felt public engagement was important,

21:31 you did not think in person necessarily was necessary

21:36 and that virtual could easily accommodate public engagement.

21:45 We can talk a little bit more about that.

21:48 I think what we need to talk about in a little bit of detail

21:51 is the discussion about county commission boundaries

21:56 because that, as you all know,

21:59 there are several of you that do consider that

22:03 as a strong priority.

22:07 However, that as a priority does compete or conflict

22:14 with some of the other priorities that we heard about.

22:18 So for instance, moving towards school board member

22:24 districts matching the county commission boundaries,

22:28 it does exacerbate the imbalance

22:34 across board member districts for number of schools.

22:38 So if you’re trying to have a somewhat equal distribution

22:44 or as close as you can get to equal distribution,

22:49 that imbalance does become greater

22:53 under county commission boundaries.

22:54 Right now, under your current boundaries,

23:00 you have the smallest number of schools is 15

23:05 in one district and the greater number is 19.

23:09 And so the delta across all the districts

23:12 is either one, two, three, or four.

23:15 If you move forward with county commission boundaries,

23:19 that delta is greater and that deviation

23:22 between the smallest and the largest is much greater.

23:25 The smallest district would have 12 schools,

23:28 the largest district would have 21,

23:31 and that delta across districts is either one, five, or nine.

23:37 - Ms. Serra Lee, you had mentioned this

23:40 based upon the physical location and address, correct?

23:43 Not on the physical location of students.

23:47 - That is correct.

23:47 That’s strictly school location.

23:50 - So in many of our districts,

23:51 regardless of where they’re drawn,

23:53 students are in our district that go to another school.

23:56 It’s just you’re talking about physical differences.

23:58 - Correct.

23:58 - Okay, just wanted to make sure.

23:59 - We did, in terms of possible criteria,

24:06 both students was mentioned as well

24:10 as student attendance boundaries.

24:12 And I think part of that is recognizing

24:15 that distinction between a school

24:17 maybe in an individual board member’s district.

24:20 However, all of the children

24:22 who are within that attendance boundary

24:25 may or may not be in that particular board member’s district.

24:29 - Thank you, Ms. Serra Lee.

24:30 - I would also say that everyone

24:35 recognizes that they serve everyone in your county.

24:42 I think the issue of number of schools specifically

24:48 comes down to when a board member wants to get to know

24:53 their particular school community better, closer,

24:58 visit the school, get to know the faculty,

25:01 the administration, the families.

25:05 It does become more difficult.

25:07 The larger your district is geographically

25:10 and/or the larger number of schools that you have

25:14 to make regular visits in the course of a year.

25:23 So one of the other areas

25:25 where there is some conflicting priorities

25:33 between the county commission boundaries

25:36 is the discussion that we had with some board members

25:39 about the number of people impacted in moving forward.

25:44 And that did have some relationship

25:47 to the discussion about public engagement.

25:49 - Ms. Serra Lee, I would go back to where it says

25:52 one member remains a board member until 2026

25:55 but resides out of the district.

25:57 I think the proposal that had the county commission seat

26:01 put district five with that district.

26:03 So they would actually have a district.

26:05 I’m not sure if you saw that.

26:07 One of your bullet points inside the presentation

26:09 is wrapped around a person being outside of their district

26:12 but in fact, it drew the district with them in it.

26:15 They would have a district.

26:19 - The intention with this statement,

26:22 it was from the map that we saw,

26:27 the board member currently in district three

26:31 would no longer be in district three

26:34 if you adopt county commission

26:37 and the board member that is in district five

26:40 would not be in district five

26:43 if you adopt county commission boundaries.

26:45 - They would remain in district five.

26:47 It would just be that their house is like,

26:51 if you draw the county commissions straight

26:54 which was the current one then that section

26:57 of where that individual is at would not be inside of it

27:00 but we had already prepared to add that person

27:03 to that district.

27:04 Does that make sense?

27:05 - No, we haven’t prepared anything.

27:06 Her statement is absolutely accurate.

27:08 - Ms. Campbell, we did have a presentation

27:12 that put that piece inside of it.

27:14 I would like to give a second.

27:17 No, no, no, we made a presentation that included,

27:20 there is a document that came out that showed that.

27:23 That’s all I’m referring to.

27:26 - Are you talking about the map or the map?

27:27 - No, no, no, Ms. Han.

27:29 - Sorry, I’m confused.

27:30 - We had a presentation earlier that put

27:32 where we took and carved out so that this all could happen,

27:36 there would be a district that Ms. Campbell would have.

27:40 That district is, it’s not like she doesn’t have a district.

27:44 It’s not like she’s just floating out there.

27:45 There’s a literal district that she would be representing.

27:49 - You can’t just represent–

27:50 - Hang on, just hang on.

27:51 If I understood correctly from Mr. Gibbs memo

27:54 that Ms. Campbell would remain in her district

27:57 and the boundary adjustment would be time

28:00 such that Ms. Campbell remained in her district

28:04 during her term of office.

28:05 That’s what I understood.

28:07 - And in order to do that,

28:09 that just needed to have a little carve out along there

28:13 to add her neighborhood to it is what it was.

28:16 - I think we were talking about effective dates of Mr. Gibbs.

28:19 - Perhaps you can tell me. - Just to clarify,

28:22 it’s not a drawing of the line.

28:23 If you adopt the county lines,

28:25 they would be the county lines right now.

28:27 It’s just Ms. Campbell would get to finish her term

28:30 with district five, and then at the conclusion of her term,

28:34 she could not run for district five anymore.

28:36 She would have to run for her new district.

28:38 And Ms. Jenkins would continue to represent district three

28:42 until her term runs,

28:43 and then she would have to run for district four.

28:46 - So part of the presentation had showed,

28:49 and I had had conversations with the supervisor of elections

28:53 that were Ms. Campbell, which I think I’ve heard

28:58 that both Ms. Campbell and Ms. Jenkins have mentioned

29:00 that you guys may not be running again.

29:02 So that’s kind of like a moot point.

29:04 But the thing is, is that both in,

29:07 that you would take that neighborhood,

29:10 draw it into five until after that individual

29:13 was no longer present, and then move that in.

29:15 That’s in a presentation that I have.

29:17 - There has been a presentation that had that inside of it.

29:21 - Well, it was not a presentation

29:22 that was ever given to this board in a public manner.

29:25 And I will tell you right now, we’ve never–

29:27 - I would be careful at saying something

29:29 that I know to be true, Ms. Campbell,

29:30 is that our staff presented that piece.

29:33 So that’s okay.

29:34 It may have been a while ago when it was,

29:36 but that’s what the original presentation was.

29:38 - That presentation, that statement,

29:40 that idea was never presented to this board,

29:42 and you don’t want me to challenge you?

29:44 Mr. Susan, I’d like to finish.

29:47 - There’s not been a conversation,

29:49 there’s not been a conversation about a carve-out,

29:52 about my neighborhood, my neighborhood,

29:54 because I will tell you, my precinct

29:56 is the second largest precinct in the entire,

30:00 in the entire county.

30:01 It’s got 12,000 voters in it.

30:04 And if you move my precinct into any other precinct,

30:07 you just threw off the whole entire percentage.

30:11 - Nobody said just now that you would be,

30:14 that that would be the way it is.

30:15 There was another option that gave it

30:17 to where you would have a,

30:18 nobody’s taking an entire precinct

30:20 and moving it into somewhere else.

30:22 Your precinct is larger than your neighborhood, Ms. Campbell.

30:25 I would say with this, for the presence of it,

30:28 that there is an option that makes it

30:30 to where you have a district until you decide not to run.

30:33 - We’ve already talked about that.

30:34 The possibility legally, if we do–

30:37 - It is legal.

30:38 - If we adopt, right, but that’s not what we talked about,

30:40 my neighborhood, but the statement that she put here

30:42 is correct.

30:44 The president, you were doubting the veracity

30:47 of her statement, which is one board member,

30:49 which would be me, remains a board member until 2026,

30:53 but resides out of district.

30:54 If we adopt the county commission lines,

30:56 I will, for three and a half years,

30:58 be residing outside of district five.

31:01 Regardless of, you can’t just move a neighborhood

31:03 and say– - Yes, you can.

31:04 - For this–

31:06 - No, you can’t. - I’m just not gonna continue

31:07 to argue with you. - Yes, you can.

31:08 So there was two options on the table.

31:10 You could do it that way, or you could take a neighborhood

31:12 and carve it out and put it there, that’s it.

31:14 That’s all I wanted to say, and that is in documents

31:17 that we did receive, because I think that was part

31:18 of the conversation, and I had the conversation

31:20 with the supervisor of elections,

31:22 and it is completely legal. - I’ve also had a conversation

31:24 with the supervisor of elections.

31:25 - I understand. - That is not

31:26 what he said to me.

31:27 - Well, what I talked to about the supervisor

31:29 and what you talked to, I hope would be two separate things,

31:32 but it is legal to do, and he said that as soon as

31:34 what the corrective action would be,

31:36 she could have that district, and then as soon as

31:38 that she is not gonna run or she is no longer on the ballot,

31:42 you can readjust it or you can keep it the same way.

31:44 It’s not a big deal, that’s all.

31:47 - Okay, my turn.

31:49 So I’m gonna go ahead and back up Ms. Campbell’s claims.

31:53 Maps in which there was a carve-out for Ms. Campbell

31:56 were not presented to the board.

31:59 I also find it interesting that there would be a map

32:01 that carves out Ms. Campbell and not Ms. Jenkins.

32:04 That doesn’t make any sense, and as well,

32:08 no, you cannot draw out Ms. Campbell’s neighborhood

32:13 because then you would be causing the problems

32:15 you claim you’re trying to avoid

32:16 with the supervisor of elections.

32:17 You have to carve out the entire precinct.

32:20 Otherwise, you’re going to create new problems

32:22 for the supervisor of elections.

32:24 The point that I was told or that was presented

32:27 to this board, the reason we wanted to adopt

32:30 the county commission lines was to reduce voter confusion.

32:34 So if we adopt the lines but then deviate them slightly,

32:37 we’re not reducing voter confusion.

32:38 We’ll still have the same exact voter confusion.

32:42 - So I think the confusion that you may have

32:45 is that you and I are up for election, right?

32:49 So that our districts can align

32:51 because then we are in the same election.

32:53 But Ms. Campbell needed that extra time.

32:55 So when I spoke to the supervisor of elections,

32:57 he stated that this was an option, that’s all.

33:00 So I just didn’t want it to be that this is the reason

33:02 that you can’t go this route or anything like that.

33:04 That’s all.

33:05 - That’s it, I’m allowed to say with the conversation

33:08 I had with the supervisor and that’s what it is.

33:10 - We heard you, Mr. Susan, but I’m not confused.

33:13 I’m not confused at all because it wouldn’t make sense

33:16 why you would carve out one board member and not another.

33:19 I don’t wanna be carved out.

33:21 I’m not advocating for that.

33:23 But the fact that you’re having that conversation

33:24 is very odd.

33:26 So no, I’m not confused, but it wasn’t something

33:29 that was presented to this board.

33:30 - All right, Ms. Jenkins, the floor is you, Ms. Sarah Lee.

33:33 - Okay, thank you and I think as we move towards the end

33:40 of the presentation and we talk about possible scopes,

33:47 I believe that your suggestion, Mr. Chair, comes into play.

33:54 This slide is intended to discuss solely an exact adoption

34:01 of the county commission boundaries as they exist today

34:06 and what potential implications would be.

34:11 And I just call your attention to this map

34:16 that is on this slide.

34:20 I think down here in Florida, I think part of the confusion

34:25 we run into with our constituents is many have not been born

34:31 and raised in Florida and in fact have come to us

34:34 from somewhere else, often up north,

34:36 and they are not used to having an autonomous school board

34:43 and an autonomous county council.

34:46 They’re actually used to their town, their community,

34:52 having authority over their schools.

34:55 And so I think part of the confusion we all run into

34:59 when we’re speaking with constituents is they are surprised

35:06 that the school board is an autonomous entity

35:10 here in Florida with its own operation.

35:13 And then certainly when they’re looking at a voter ID card

35:18 and it says county commission, district three,

35:22 school board commission, district four or whatever,

35:27 it is a reasonable question in their mind,

35:30 why are they not the same?

35:32 If they’re both the whole county, why are they not the same?

35:37 I will say you are not the only district/county

35:42 that does not match your school board seats

35:45 with your county commission seats.

35:48 We did not do a survey of everyone,

35:51 but I know just as a matter of my own experience,

35:58 working on this issue with others,

36:01 that they may not have matched historically

36:06 or they may have matched historically and they do not now.

36:11 And for whatever reason,

36:13 it’s often because the school board,

36:18 reasonably so, is concerned about different issues

36:21 than the county commission.

36:23 They may oftentimes work on issues together,

36:28 but your first and foremost obligation

36:31 is to the operation of your schools.

36:34 And we all know that our schools come in very, very helpful

36:41 to the county when there’s storms

36:44 and that there’s often a lot of other issues

36:46 we work on together,

36:48 but it is not unusual for them not to match

36:53 and/or for you to decide to match them

36:56 and/or later choose not to.

37:01 I think the areas that you can see on this map

37:05 are the areas that would be impacted

37:08 if you decide to go to a straight

37:11 county commission boundary adoption.

37:14 These are the geographic areas

37:18 where people will be impacted

37:22 in speaking with Mr. Bubonic about that.

37:27 Right now Brevard has in excess

37:30 of 460,000 registered voters.

37:33 Unfortunately, we know that not everybody votes.

37:38 There’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 voters

37:42 in these different colored areas.

37:47 So let’s talk a little bit about our conversation

37:53 with the supervisor of elections.

37:55 And I wanna make sure I clarify,

37:58 especially this first and second bullet.

38:02 This first bullet is actually speaking to

38:05 what if you decide to adopt the county commission boundaries

38:11 to be your school board seats.

38:13 If you do that, you do reduce the number of ballot types.

38:22 You don’t necessarily change the number of ballots

38:24 because whatever your number of voters are,

38:27 each voter has to have a ballot.

38:30 But this bullet is speaking specifically to

38:34 if you choose to adopt county commission boundaries.

38:37 If you choose to adopt some other variation,

38:42 and we don’t know what that would be,

38:45 the number of ballot types may go up,

38:50 probably wouldn’t go down, may go up a lot,

38:54 may not go up a lot.

38:55 That is when this issue of looking at the precincts,

39:01 and if moving a whole precinct is not possible,

39:04 a precinct may be too large.

39:08 Then again, in conversation with Mr. Bobanek,

39:12 at the very least, do not take any geographic unit

39:17 that is smaller than the census block,

39:21 as determined by the US Census.

39:25 So there’s different issues that are raised

39:30 depending on how you decide to look at your boundaries.

39:36 Certainly if we become engaged with you

39:42 to move this forward in whatever manner is decided,

39:48 we would be working closely with the supervisor of election

39:52 on whatever scenarios were created,

39:58 because it is important to try and keep things

40:03 as simple as possible,

40:08 whether we’re looking at the shapes of the districts,

40:11 or whether we’re looking at where people are voting

40:16 and the formation of precincts.

40:20 The supervisor of election is required

40:23 to send out voter cards after you adopt

40:28 whatever you choose to adopt.

40:31 He will have to send out new voter cards

40:33 to any voter that is affected.

40:36 So meaning, if a current voter stays in district one

40:42 and his or her nothing is changed,

40:47 that particular voter does not need a card.

40:50 But if a voter is reassigned to a different district,

40:55 then that voter would have to get a card.

41:00 And again, they, their office, they have some good staff.

41:07 They review their precincts and their data regularly.

41:11 And certainly if we were part of your team moving forward,

41:14 we would be continuing to have conversation

41:18 and work with Mr. Bubonic and his staff.

41:23 Lastly, before we move into some conversation

41:27 about potential scopes,

41:30 wanted to just talk about public engagement.

41:33 And many of you said an extensive process is not necessary,

41:40 but again, some competing priorities.

41:43 You know, if we’re going to impact a lot of people,

41:46 then the need for engagement becomes greater.

41:50 If, what form that engagement takes,

41:56 recognizing this work is gonna happen quickly

42:00 and over the summer.

42:02 So being able to reach out to people through their schools

42:06 is not necessarily an option.

42:10 And people will be away as people normally are

42:14 during the summer.

42:16 We did speak with each of you about a web tool

42:20 that WXY has used in other redistricting exercises,

42:26 not specifically school board redistricting,

42:28 but I know you’re very familiar with attendance boundaries.

42:32 And that web tool is able to be made accessible virtually

42:39 for people to comment on

42:42 and/or to conduct some virtual meetings.

42:47 So again, the whole discussion about public engagement,

42:53 the level to which any one of you were interested in it

42:57 kind of corresponded to other concerns

43:00 that you may or may not have raised.

43:05 At this point, I am going to turn the next two slides

43:13 over to Adam and Raphael to talk to you

43:17 about potential scopes,

43:20 should you decide that you want to do something

43:24 beyond just adopting county commission boundaries.

43:31 - Super, thank you, Shirley.

43:34 So we’ve put together two scope options

43:37 based on what we heard.

43:41 The both scopes recommended analysis

43:45 of the county commission boundaries

43:48 and a first scenario which explores the minimum number

43:53 of changes to your existing school board boundaries

43:57 that you might need to make an order relations.

44:01 And that would be to minimally balance the populations

44:03 to get under that 10% threshold.

44:08 The analysis of the county commission boundaries

44:12 would be purely to calculate the same set of metrics

44:16 that we’d be calculating for the county commission boundaries

44:21 so that in effect, you’d be able to compare apples to apples

44:25 the county commission boundaries

44:27 against the scenario one boundaries.

44:30 Under option two, we recommend exploring a second scenario.

44:37 And this is really a much more open-ended scenario

44:39 where we could explore different member priorities

44:44 and make more significant boundary changes.

44:48 And so if you’re interested in this,

44:51 we haven’t prescribed or recommended an approach

44:54 for the second scenario, but that would be determined

44:57 based on additional board input.

45:02 In both scenarios, we recommend a board workshop

45:06 and a round of boundary edits following the board workshop.

45:11 And then that would lead to a final set

45:15 of scenario boundary recommendations.

45:20 We recommend different levels of engagement

45:22 under the two scopes.

45:24 In both scopes, we recommend an interactive mapping tool.

45:31 However, only in option two,

45:33 are we recommending virtual meetings based on your.

45:40 And then both options include reporting

45:43 and that’s just a final report

45:45 as well as a summary of the engagement.

45:48 The engagement summary would be different in the two options.

45:52 So in the first option,

45:53 it would just be a set of metrics

45:57 who submitted a survey on the interactive tool,

46:00 who put a comment on the map,

46:02 what was the web traffic like.

46:05 Under option two, it would include all of that website data

46:08 in addition to data collected at the meetings.

46:13 Because option one is less work overall,

46:18 the fee is lower and the timeline is shorter.

46:21 And so we believe that rounding out the analysis

46:25 by the end of June would be appropriately leading

46:30 plenty of time ahead of August 22nd,

46:34 which as I understand is the latest possible date

46:37 that boundaries can be adopted to go into effect

46:42 for the next election.

46:44 Option, in terms of timeline,

46:48 we think that it’s a reasonable to complete

46:50 all of the option two tasks by the end of July this summer

46:56 with the same note later than date.

47:00 And then the fee amounts are different

47:02 and based at the bottom there.

47:03 I wanna note that these are just two sets of options

47:08 we’ve put together.

47:09 We can sort of mix and match tasks as necessary

47:13 if the board is interested and can provide updated

47:18 the estimates based on these different configurations.

47:22 Slide please.

47:32 So we’re just quickly touching on the timeline again

47:36 before kicking it off to Q&A.

47:38 So we recommend under both options

47:41 to complete the redistricting analysis in May.

47:44 The board workshop would then take place

47:47 at one of the listed dates.

47:51 The round of modifications if needed would take place

47:55 after that board workshop.

47:58 We’re recommending that engagement take place in June

48:01 and or July depending on the amount of engagement

48:04 done under or the board would wanna proceed on engagement.

48:12 We’re recommending that the initial scenario

48:15 is published to the web tool for public comment

48:19 so that the board would then have access to public comments

48:23 as they’re at their board workshop.

48:27 Following the board workshop in the round of edits

48:31 that revised scenario if the scenario is revised

48:35 would then be re-uploaded to the web tool

48:39 and members of the public would be able to leave comments

48:43 on that updated scenario.

48:47 And under option two in the time we would additionally

48:51 be conducting virtual meetings.

48:54 And then finally the final redistricting

48:57 and engagement memo once the redistricting

48:59 and engagement tests are completed.

49:02 Thank you, I’ll pass it back to Sarah Lee.

49:07 - That concludes the information that we’ve put together

49:11 for your consideration and obviously

49:16 if you need any elaboration or answering any questions

49:23 during your discussion we’re here.

49:29 - Thank you, I think you guys did a great presentations.

49:32 Thank you so much for that.

49:34 With that are there any board members

49:36 that wish to discuss any of this?

49:38 I do know that one of the things

49:41 that would help with whether we went

49:42 with the county commission or not.

49:44 I spent a lot of time looking at our current ones

49:48 and the county commission ones

49:49 and if you do it by population there’s schools

49:52 like McNair, Saturn, Gulfview

49:55 that are physical locations in one

49:57 but the majority of students may be in the other.

49:59 So you may be able to say in order to equal it out

50:02 you can take those schools and regardless

50:04 of if we went with the county commission or not

50:06 the population inhibits you to do that.

50:09 Like for me there’s a lot of kids

50:11 that are in my district that go to Anderson

50:14 but I think that it’s in your district, right?

50:16 So there’s like that whole dynamic, right?

50:19 So there’s the way to levelize all of the schools

50:22 is in some cases and I went across

50:24 and it’s probably three or four

50:26 that we would have to do that on

50:27 but the majority of them would fall

50:29 into the districts that we have currently.

50:32 I just wanted to kind of mention that

50:33 as we were moving forward

50:34 but if you guys want to start the conversations

50:37 any kind of the direction or anything like that?

50:40 - I’ll start the conversation.

50:41 So this is redistricting is obviously

50:43 one of those topics that people feel differently

50:46 and different passions about this

50:47 because it impacts us all differently

50:50 and it’s one of those challenging things

50:51 that we have to take on

50:54 because statute says that we have to do this.

50:57 One of the other things to take in consideration

50:59 which I hope maybe our legislators

51:00 will look at this in the future

51:01 but our districts based on the number of voters

51:04 doesn’t necessarily correlate to the number of students.

51:06 So when you have a retirement community

51:08 that’s in a district now that number goes up

51:10 and so I understand the complexity of this.

51:12 This is it’s a complicated issue.

51:14 To me I’ve said this since day one

51:16 I really feel like adopting the county commissions

51:19 is the same, we should keep it the same

51:21 just for simplicity of voters.

51:23 That’s what I’ve said since day one.

51:24 I understand it poses challenges

51:26 to really three of you guys.

51:28 I don’t think well, no actually everyone except for mine.

51:30 Mine’s the only district I think

51:30 that doesn’t really get impacted by this change too much.

51:34 So that’s where I stand on this.

51:35 I don’t know where you guys stand on this

51:37 but I guess that’s what we will discuss at this point.

51:45 Don’t everybody all jump at once.

51:49 - All right, yeah.

51:52 I think it’s, well thank you very much

51:55 for doing what you did, taking the time

51:57 and how to wrap that up to say that we all

52:01 are independently thinking about this.

52:05 You said that nicely.

52:08 Same here, I’ve said it from the very beginning.

52:11 Don’t wanna reinvent the wheel.

52:13 There are gonna be positives and negatives.

52:15 We could sit here for many, many months

52:17 coming up with scenarios and a couple years from now

52:23 I don’t think we’re gonna look back

52:24 and say I wish we would have did the boundaries

52:31 in a different way.

52:31 I mean when we’re all off the board

52:33 it’ll just be new people and regardless where we live.

52:37 So I’m with Megan on this.

52:40 I’m just, I don’t wanna spend any of the district’s money

52:45 if we don’t have to.

52:46 And I’m all for the county commission boundaries.

52:51 They’ve already taken the time and the effort

52:53 and spent the money.

52:54 So that’s where I’ve been since day one as well.

52:58 - Thank you, Mr. Trump.

52:59 Ms. Jenkins.

53:02 - So you’re right.

53:04 It’s not about the board members individually

53:07 because they aren’t permanent.

53:09 But it is about our students, our staff

53:12 and the communities in which we represent.

53:15 And adopting the county commission map

53:19 doesn’t make that a priority.

53:22 It’s clear, it’s evident when one district

53:25 will have 21 schools, seven of which are secondary schools

53:29 and another district would be left with 12.

53:33 That’s not in the best interest of students and staff.

53:39 I have the least amount of personal buy-in

53:46 for this conversation because whether or not

53:48 we adopt the county commission or completely redraw

53:51 this map, the likelihood of me staying in district three

53:53 is basically impossible.

53:55 So my perspective is completely unselfish.

53:59 I believe it’s our role and responsibility

54:00 to do what’s best for our students, our staff

54:02 and the communities that we serve.

54:11 What I’ve found interesting from day one

54:14 of this conversation is that we forget the part

54:18 where the county commissioners had the opportunity

54:22 and the authority to draw the maps

54:24 in which we’re looking at right now.

54:26 And so essentially by adopting their maps,

54:29 you’re relinquishing your control and your responsibility

54:32 and authority that you were given by the voters

54:34 who voted you in to make that decision.

54:37 I’m not comfortable with that either.

54:40 Their role and responsibility is very different than ours.

54:42 The reason they drew their maps was for their own purposes

54:46 and their roles in representing the counties

54:48 and the areas that they were voted into.

54:50 So that makes no sense to me.

54:54 Personally, I think that if we’re going to redraw the map,

54:58 it needs to have significant changes to it.

55:01 Districts three, four and five

55:02 are way larger than one and two.

55:05 Districts four and five are proposed to continue to grow.

55:09 There’s no reason to not look

55:12 at this completely differently.

55:13 Again, an unselfish conversation

55:16 because I will very much be drawn out of my district.

55:20 I think disenfranchising 100,000 voters

55:23 to not be able to vote in the next election

55:25 that they were expecting to vote in is unfortunate.

55:32 I think, I’m just gonna tell it like it is,

55:35 I think having a conversation in the beginning of this

55:37 where we talk about cutting in one board member

55:40 and not another just shows where your priorities lie.

55:47 If you adopt those county commission maps,

55:49 I hope you expect to have a very packed room

55:52 of angry people ‘cause that’s what’s gonna happen

55:57 because you’re not representing the constituents

55:59 within the entire county.

56:02 I think it’s a self-serving decision.

56:05 I’m completely against it.

56:07 Again, I have no personal buy-in.

56:10 Quite frankly, I would love to be in another district

56:12 to vote against somebody.

56:14 I think this is just, I think this is foolish.

56:16 I think we’re relinquishing our role and responsibility

56:19 and I don’t think we’re doing what’s in the best interest

56:21 of our students and our staff.

56:24 - Thank you, Ms. Jenkins.

56:25 Ms. Campbell.

56:28 - Sure, I’ve got a couple of questions

56:29 before I make our comments.

56:32 I have, on the slide,

56:37 I guess it’s the last slide with the information,

56:38 there was a, and on the timeline,

56:40 there was mention of adopting the resolution

56:43 no later than August 22nd.

56:45 Is there, I know in my conversation with you,

56:48 I had shared my personal feelings

56:50 I wanna go ahead and get this done by the CIMER

56:52 for potential candidates, just out of fairness,

56:54 because that gives them exactly one year

56:56 before their elections.

56:57 I don’t know if that was what the thought,

56:58 ‘cause I don’t think we’re,

56:59 I think our actual statutory limitations

57:01 are this calendar year, odd, odd year.

57:04 Is that, that’s correct, right, okay.

57:07 So it’s not necessarily, the adoption of the resolution

57:09 by August 22nd is not necessarily a mandate,

57:13 it’s just a goal.

57:15 - Correct.

57:16 - Okay, just wanted to make sure.

57:19 And then I, you know, so just sharing different thoughts,

57:24 you had said something about,

57:26 in the conversation with Mr. Bobanek,

57:29 about the new voter cards.

57:30 I don’t know about the rest of the board members,

57:32 but I get a new voter registration card every single year,

57:34 regardless of anything changes or not.

57:36 They just send them out fresh and new every year,

57:38 and I cut it out, put it in my wallet,

57:40 throw the other one away.

57:42 It’s just something that they have done routinely,

57:44 unless they’re making a change.

57:45 I think they do it all the time.

57:47 I also wonder, I, personally, my preference

57:50 between the two options would be option one.

57:54 I, you know, it is

57:58 $17,000 difference, but it is $17,000.

58:03 And I think that we could, you know, looking at,

58:07 it gets the job done, the things that it doesn’t do

58:09 is the more significant boundary changes.

58:11 I disagree, Ms. Jenkins, respectfully,

58:14 with the making bigger changes,

58:16 ‘cause my priority is for us to make as few changes

58:18 as possible, and I’ll go on with that in just a minute.

58:21 And then I like that we have interactive mapping tool,

58:25 but I think what we miss in having the virtual meetings,

58:27 I think that is something we could do in-house,

58:29 if we had to, maybe not with the same level of expertise,

58:31 but we could facilitate something like that,

58:33 if we, you know, if we were in a tight.

58:39 So I will be quite honest with you guys.

58:44 The only, there’s only one board member,

58:45 ‘cause we had this conversation two years ago,

58:46 that it was absolutely clear that from day one,

58:49 that this was his position,

58:50 because he’s been very clear from day one.

58:53 But I’ll be honest, I have yet to hear a really solid reason

58:57 for making this drastic change.

58:58 This is a drastic change.

59:00 The people, the only people who I’ve ever heard complain,

59:03 and I’ve been on the board for four and a half years,

59:06 ran two campaigns, the only people who I ever hear complain

59:10 about us not being aligned are people from Breck.

59:14 And you know, for people who are actively campaigning,

59:16 because most of the people,

59:18 I’ve asked the Brevard Republican Executive Committee,

59:20 for those who are not aware of our political terminology,

59:24 and not even all of them.

59:25 And when they’ve said, why can’t it be, it would be easier,

59:27 ‘cause for campaigning, it would be easier.

59:29 But that’s not our goal,

59:30 is to make it easier for campaigning.

59:34 Even if we have different goals,

59:35 I don’t think that, I haven’t heard that spoken

59:37 as any of our goals.

59:39 And when I have shared with them what it would mean

59:42 as far as the number of voters who would not get to vote

59:45 in the next election,

59:46 who thought they were going to, being 42,000,

59:48 it wasn’t 100,000, it’s a total number of disruption,

59:51 but it’s only 42,000 that would not get to vote

59:54 in the next election, who are supposed to.

59:57 And if we had not made any changes.

59:59 That makes a difference to them.

1:00:02 And it makes a difference to me.

1:00:04 And I do have a problem, I mean, I know Mr. Gibbs,

1:00:07 I’m gonna trust him, I know he’s shared us with that,

1:00:10 you know, that we can do, we can draw the lines

1:00:13 and draw the lines with me outside of District Five,

1:00:15 I still don’t like it, it’s not about me running again,

1:00:18 I still don’t like the idea of representing people.

1:00:21 And I certainly, one of my things that I have said

1:00:25 from day one is to make the, is to not create

1:00:30 any new precincts, to move, make the changes we move

1:00:32 precinct by precinct, if at all possible,

1:00:34 and I think that’s what they’ve suggested that we could do.

1:00:38 Don’t want to have to create new precincts,

1:00:39 split new precincts, put them together,

1:00:42 and when I had my conversation with Mr. Bobanek,

1:00:44 he, those are the things we talked about.

1:00:46 And by the way, he said, I thank you guys

1:00:49 for reaching out to him, he said he’d be willing

1:00:51 to come and talk to us as well, so we can clear up

1:00:54 conversation you had with him, and she had with him,

1:00:56 and I had with him, so we are all on the same page

1:00:58 and clearly having this conversation,

1:01:00 regardless of what we decide to do.

1:01:05 You know, one of us said something about reinventing

1:01:08 the wheel, exactly.

1:01:10 I don’t want us to reinvent the wheel.

1:01:12 Changing our school board boundaries to match

1:01:14 the county commissioners, we are reinventing this wheel.

1:01:17 We are recreating, we are making major drastic changes,

1:01:22 and I just, if I say the same thing multiple ways,

1:01:24 I’m sorry, and I apologize if sometimes when we get

1:01:28 on this issue, I seem like a little bit of a Tasmanian devil

1:01:31 on the inside, I am feeling a little Tasmanian devil,

1:01:33 because to me, we’re making huge changes with something

1:01:37 that is very close to being how it needs to be.

1:01:43 We have really great population.

1:01:47 When we had the conversation, I very much appreciated it.

1:01:49 When we had these conversations and the priorities,

1:01:52 you know, it was asked of me by Annalee, you know,

1:01:56 what do you think about your community?

1:01:57 I’m like, you know what, when I look at my community

1:01:58 and the community of every district,

1:02:01 I see that balanced population.

1:02:03 I see in every district some areas of affluence

1:02:08 and some areas of poverty, some Title I schools

1:02:11 and some non-Title I areas.

1:02:13 I see, you know, just the difference, you know,

1:02:18 we have a really great balance right now,

1:02:20 and so making minimal changes to that leaves us

1:02:23 with that good balance and won’t create those districts

1:02:26 that have a larger population of people

1:02:29 who don’t have families, people don’t have kids.

1:02:32 And so we’re, and that affects your voting population,

1:02:37 you know, and all of that.

1:02:38 So, and I also don’t think,

1:02:41 we’re not talking about many, many months.

1:02:43 I mean, unless you’re,

1:02:44 we’re not ready to make this decision today.

1:02:46 So regardless, I mean, if the majority of the board

1:02:50 kind of sounds like we’re going there,

1:02:51 have already made up their mind,

1:02:52 then you could put it on the ballot

1:02:54 at the next board meeting and let’s just say we’re doing it,

1:02:57 we’re adopting the kind of commission lines.

1:02:59 So we won’t spend even $57,000.

1:03:01 We won’t do, we don’t need to do public engagement.

1:03:04 Public engagement is if they wanna sign for public comment,

1:03:06 they can do that.

1:03:07 If y’all are ready to do that,

1:03:08 then roll and we’ll do it.

1:03:10 But I don’t, but even if we don’t do that,

1:03:13 even if we walk through this process,

1:03:14 we’re not talking about many months.

1:03:16 We’re talking about, today is April 25th.

1:03:18 We’re talking about less than four,

1:03:19 right at four months of a process.

1:03:21 And could be even faster if we do the option one

1:03:25 and we’re done by June and then we get it rolled,

1:03:27 we do adopt the resolution by July.

1:03:29 I mean, it doesn’t have to,

1:03:31 so we’re talking about three months.

1:03:33 There’s no reason to say that it’s many months.

1:03:36 And this, adopting the county commission lines,

1:03:38 I’m gonna say again, is not the simplest option.

1:03:42 It’s not.

1:03:43 42,000 people, I’m gonna say it one more time,

1:03:46 42,000 people who are in district three or four,

1:03:51 who would be moved out of district three or four.

1:03:53 And we’re gonna have some,

1:03:54 we can’t do this without moving some people.

1:03:56 But I would prefer a plan where we’re moving

1:03:58 a little precinct here, a little precinct there

1:04:00 to make us even, to make us within the percentages.

1:04:05 But then we’ve only moved a couple of thousand people

1:04:10 out of the next election.

1:04:12 We can’t avoid it all.

1:04:14 And I will commit to you, if we’ll go through this process,

1:04:16 I’m not gonna cherry pick which precinct

1:04:18 and say, no, I really want that precinct.

1:04:19 No, I really want, no, I’m willing to be fair about it.

1:04:24 But I think we need to keep this, to me,

1:04:26 simple is just do what the county commission did.

1:04:30 Moved one precinct, two precinct,

1:04:32 we can’t go away with one because the ways ours are drawn.

1:04:35 But move one or two, three at max,

1:04:37 just do what we can do to get it even,

1:04:41 but to disrupt as few voters as possible,

1:04:45 to disrupt the balance that we currently have

1:04:48 of, to me, really well demographically defined districts.

1:04:53 I hope that you all took advantage.

1:04:55 I asked Tammy to look up the last two rounds,

1:04:57 and I hope you guys took advantage of that

1:04:58 and read through those notes because what I saw,

1:05:00 even down to 2001, unfortunately,

1:05:03 the minutes stopped in October,

1:05:04 but where they stopped in October was,

1:05:06 they were working with the county commission

1:05:08 to redraw the lines, and in October, they said,

1:05:10 we’re not doing that anymore.

1:05:11 And I had a conversation with Janice Kershaw,

1:05:13 who was in my seat at the time,

1:05:14 and she didn’t really remember a lot of details of it,

1:05:16 but for them, it came down to schools.

1:05:19 And then if you look at 2011, they considered it again.

1:05:23 They considered, could we go with the county commission lines

1:05:25 and they didn’t.

1:05:26 They actually made really pretty good size changes

1:05:30 because they were like 34 percentage points

1:05:33 out of compliance.

1:05:36 So we’re definitely not sitting there.

1:05:37 So they made some pretty big changes

1:05:39 and had a lot of community feedback,

1:05:41 but again, they got it done without going,

1:05:45 even though the option was available to them

1:05:46 of matching the county commission lines.

1:05:48 Go back and read through the minutes

1:05:49 and you’ll see they chose not to do that.

1:05:53 And again, part of it is the different purposes

1:05:57 that we have.

1:05:58 We don’t really all have to touch the beach.

1:06:00 We don’t really all have to touch the Indian River Lagoon

1:06:03 because those aren’t our kind of issues.

1:06:08 - Thank you, Ms. Campbell.

1:06:10 I proposed this two years ago, unselfishly.

1:06:14 We were in a situation where the county commission

1:06:16 had reached out and asked during that time,

1:06:19 are you guys gonna get moving on your redistricting, okay?

1:06:23 And what ended up happening is that we were in a situation

1:06:26 where I brought it up and said, there’s two options here.

1:06:30 We can do an accelerated redistricting

1:06:32 just along the same number of times

1:06:34 that you just had spoken to.

1:06:35 But the main thing was is if we just mirrored

1:06:37 the county commission, this thing could be fixed.

1:06:40 So we were out of compliance.

1:06:41 At that time, Mr. Bobanek had been sending emails over to us

1:06:44 asking us to redistrict because of the situation that he had.

1:06:48 He had expressed his discontent with our district

1:06:52 because of the behavior of us not responding to him

1:06:54 and not going back.

1:06:55 So what I had proposed was an unselfish two years ago,

1:07:00 let’s move forward with something

1:07:01 and this board decided not to.

1:07:04 That meant that for the next two years,

1:07:07 we were out of compliance.

1:07:09 The next thing is is that I hear over and over again,

1:07:12 this thing that we can’t support students

1:07:14 because the physical location of the school

1:07:16 is not in our screen.

1:07:18 Statutory law says that we have to follow

1:07:22 all students to be represented,

1:07:24 not just where the location of the school is at.

1:07:28 So when I sit there and I drive around

1:07:30 and I knock on doors and it’s in Rockledge

1:07:33 and the students go to Anderson and the same confusion,

1:07:36 which I will tell you, many people along the campaign trail,

1:07:41 along the times that I’m knocking on doors

1:07:43 do say to me, how is it?

1:07:45 And the reason is is that my district,

1:07:46 I think is the most impacted.

1:07:48 So I have, I think every single county difference

1:07:52 of county commission in my district.

1:07:54 So the bottom line is is that when I’m knocking on doors,

1:07:56 I see it a lot where people say,

1:07:58 well, I thought I was in school board district four

1:08:00 or district three because of what I have

1:08:02 for the county commission.

1:08:04 The other thing that I would say is is that our schools,

1:08:08 we have representation, I already went through it.

1:08:12 You can move McNair, Saturn, Gulfview over to district one,

1:08:15 you can move Sable, Croton over to district three.

1:08:17 There’s all kinds of options where the majority of students

1:08:20 are inside another district where the physical location

1:08:23 of the school is in another.

1:08:24 So if it’s the schools, which is not even by statute

1:08:27 that we’re supposed to do it that way,

1:08:28 is the part then doing it that way evens it out

1:08:32 and we can get to a more equal position doing that.

1:08:35 To say that we’re gonna sit here and draw the districts

1:08:37 based on the physical location of the schools is impossible

1:08:40 because the bottom line is is that Mr. Trent

1:08:44 has so many, I have many, it would be literally work over

1:08:48 work over work to try to get there.

1:08:49 So we’re gonna have to go to a place where we just

1:08:51 literally sit back and say, okay, the majority students here

1:08:54 or some of the students there and we just equal it out.

1:08:57 And I will tell you that we can represent a school

1:09:00 because not because the physical location

1:09:02 is inside of our district, but the actual students are there

1:09:04 and just the simple fact that I’ve seen all of you go around

1:09:07 and actually represent many of the other schools

1:09:09 in many different ways and a positive thing.

1:09:11 So I have the belief that you guys can do that.

1:09:16 Going on to cleaning up the districts,

1:09:19 there seems to be this, there are precincts,

1:09:20 there seems to be this thing where Mr. Balbonic

1:09:24 is saying one thing, look, he has come forward and said,

1:09:27 if I asked you guys two years ago to do this,

1:09:30 there’s emails that were sent, you didn’t do it.

1:09:32 No matter what you do, we’re gonna have to impact people.

1:09:35 So whether we do it with the County Commission

1:09:37 or we do it minimally or we do it like Ms. Jenkins

1:09:39 said majorly, those people are gonna be represented,

1:09:42 he’s going to have to send out the cards.

1:09:44 That’s just what’s gonna happen

1:09:45 and it was part of the presentation over here.

1:09:47 So we’re gonna impact people no matter what.

1:09:49 So the argument isn’t that we’re not gonna impact people,

1:09:52 it’s just maybe we impact less people

1:09:55 if we go the other way.

1:09:56 So the other component is, is that this increased costs

1:10:00 at a time where we’re trying to reallocate

1:10:02 towards different priorities,

1:10:04 we’re also gonna be increasing staff time

1:10:07 because if we go with the County Commission,

1:10:08 then the staff time gets sent up.

1:10:11 And I mean, there’s no doubt that we have currently policies

1:10:15 that we can’t even get to right now

1:10:17 that are out of compliance.

1:10:18 We have a new superintendent coming,

1:10:20 we have a new super strategic plan coming,

1:10:22 we have a huge amount of situation

1:10:26 where we’re gonna be going through the budget,

1:10:27 which all of those meetings that she had put down on there

1:10:30 are gonna be allocated towards the budget.

1:10:32 We’ve only gone through 2000 out of the 9000.

1:10:34 We have literally so much stuff to do

1:10:36 that this is gonna impact it.

1:10:37 So from a cost perspective, from staffs times perspective,

1:10:41 from the impact inside the community,

1:10:43 from I would say that this is the best case scenario.

1:10:47 I would also wanna make the argument

1:10:49 that there are many counties across the state that have this

1:10:55 that match the county commissions.

1:10:56 There are many that don’t.

1:10:58 That is a moot point.

1:10:59 And where we draw our lines does not make a difference

1:11:02 of if we represent kids.

1:11:04 I have many schools that I represent the kids

1:11:07 that aren’t inside my district.

1:11:08 So anyways, with that, I think that there’s a majority

1:11:11 that move towards that.

1:11:13 - I would like to have a second round of discussion, please,

1:11:15 if you wouldn’t mind.

1:11:16 - Ms. Campbell, then please,

1:11:18 when we come to the 2000 proposals,

1:11:22 don’t try to say we don’t have enough time

1:11:24 for the rest of the board meeting.

1:11:26 - Mr. Susan.

1:11:27 - I just like, there’s three people that have given–

1:11:30 - You just took about 20 minutes of this meeting

1:11:32 going on a rant. - No, no.

1:11:34 - Ms. Campbell has a right to speak.

1:11:35 Ms. Jenkins, Ms. Jenkins, please.

1:11:37 - I don’t like to be dismissed by any side.

1:11:40 Nobody does, nobody does.

1:11:42 But rather than wrap it up tight,

1:11:44 because you got wrapped up with a bow,

1:11:45 you get to go around first round.

1:11:47 We can have a second round.

1:11:48 We’re not done yet, we’re not done yet.

1:11:51 Because you brought up some new issues,

1:11:53 and you addressed some of the issues that I’ve addressed

1:11:55 or other people have addressed,

1:11:56 but you haven’t addressed all of them.

1:11:57 You brought something up new and talk about two years ago.

1:11:59 So I would like to share two years ago,

1:12:01 which will be in the minutes.

1:12:02 It will be on the video with the conversations that we had.

1:12:04 Yes, we had the opportunity two years ago

1:12:07 to have this conversation.

1:12:08 It was presented by Ms. Han at the last board meeting

1:12:11 that the census data did not come out until late.

1:12:15 The county commissioners got a late start

1:12:17 with their very long process.

1:12:19 And what I recall you asking us to do

1:12:22 was to say absolutely what you said.

1:12:23 Let’s just go along with whatever the county commissioners do

1:12:25 but at that point, it was gonna be going along blindly

1:12:30 because they were in the process.

1:12:31 They didn’t know what they were doing.

1:12:32 They did not vote on what they were going to do

1:12:35 until November.

1:12:37 And I as a board member who was on the board with you

1:12:39 at the time was not willing to say yes

1:12:41 to whatever the county commissioners do

1:12:43 not knowing what they’re going to do.

1:12:45 I was not willing to do that.

1:12:47 And by the time we had the decision that they had made

1:12:50 in November, we had from November to December

1:12:53 with a Christmas break and a Thanksgiving break in there

1:12:55 to go through this process and to do our own process,

1:13:00 which does not have to be as long and complicated,

1:13:02 but then we were short on time and we couldn’t control that.

1:13:07 And I’m not going to blindly say yes

1:13:09 to what another entity is going to do,

1:13:11 not having any idea how it’s going to affect us.

1:13:13 I’m not going to say yes ahead of time

1:13:14 and write them a blank check for a decision

1:13:16 that is our job to make.

1:13:19 So I’m just gonna clarify that.

1:13:21 Yes, you brought it up and you’ve said that many, many times

1:13:23 you brought it up, we’re out of compliance.

1:13:24 We were out of compliance this much.

1:13:26 They were out of compliance that much.

1:13:28 They got their job done, but we did not have time.

1:13:31 And our general counsel told us at the time

1:13:34 we were close enough to deal with it

1:13:37 and we would push it off to 2023

1:13:38 because that was the next opportunity that we had.

1:13:41 We’ve talked about cost increases.

1:13:43 I hear you, I hear you, but we’re talking about $57,000.

1:13:48 So unless you’ve got another cost increase

1:13:49 ‘cause the supervisor of elections in cabin conversation

1:13:52 with our consultants has explained,

1:13:53 it is not an increased cost to them

1:13:55 unless we do something like create new precincts.

1:13:58 They have to print all the same things.

1:14:00 So we’re not talking about extra increase.

1:14:02 And when you talk about too much work to do,

1:14:04 I hear you, Mr. Susan, I am tired, I’m exhausted.

1:14:07 And I know I’m looking at the next few months

1:14:09 and I know we’ve got so much work to do

1:14:11 and I am committed to do it.

1:14:12 And I will get up early and stay up late

1:14:14 and do whatever I have to do to get it done.

1:14:17 But I’m not going to dismiss this

1:14:20 as an issue that’s not as important

1:14:21 because we can just so quickly and glibly take care of it.

1:14:24 I am opposed to this.

1:14:29 I believe there are people when they realize

1:14:31 who they are that will be affected will be opposed to this.

1:14:34 And I hope they speak up.

1:14:36 If this is what happens, I will,

1:14:38 once the decision is made, go along.

1:14:40 And the schools, yes,

1:14:42 I would like to have an even number of schools.

1:14:43 I hear you, we can be creative.

1:14:44 And yes, we represent all schools.

1:14:46 And I think I have done a pretty good job of that myself too.

1:14:50 But we’re talking that you have not answered to me

1:14:53 the big issue of the number of voters

1:14:56 who we’re shoving out of an election.

1:14:59 You have not addressed that.

1:15:05 - Are you finished?

1:15:06 - Yes, I am.

1:15:08 - I didn’t mean that rudely, I just didn’t want to jump.

1:15:11 So first and foremost, Mr. Bulbanik

1:15:14 wasn’t the supervisor of elections two years ago.

1:15:17 Just want to make sure that that is clear.

1:15:20 I also spoke with him and it appears

1:15:22 that my conversation was very similar to Ms. Campbell’s.

1:15:26 And again, when I specifically asked him,

1:15:29 how would this make things easier

1:15:31 for the supervisor of elections?

1:15:32 He said, well, it’s possible that we might be able

1:15:36 to reduce the number of precincts,

1:15:37 but I don’t know how many precincts would even be impacted.

1:15:41 I don’t even know if we’ve got that response yet.

1:15:44 It may be the most minimal number.

1:15:47 He doesn’t know, he said that very transparently.

1:15:51 He also told me that you had articulated

1:15:56 that one board member would be displaced.

1:15:59 So if we’re going to have this conversation,

1:16:01 let’s be transparent from the get-go.

1:16:03 From the get-go, have some integrity.

1:16:05 We know where you’re coming from.

1:16:07 I understand the intention.

1:16:09 One thing that’s really important for the community

1:16:13 to realize that we have not discussed publicly

1:16:16 is Mr. Gibbs did send us a memo that said,

1:16:20 sure, we can reside out of our districts,

1:16:24 but that opens us up to a financial liability

1:16:28 of constituents suing the school board

1:16:30 for the two members being out of their area.

1:16:33 So Mr. Gibbs, because I’m sure

1:16:36 that’ll be magically refuted for accuracy,

1:16:38 can you please speak to that?

1:16:41 - Yeah, I had mentioned that there is a possibility

1:16:43 that someone could try and challenge a board member

1:16:45 being out of their district.

1:16:47 The law is pretty clear that the board member

1:16:50 would get to serve out their elected term.

1:16:52 So we would have to defend the lawsuit,

1:16:54 so there would be a financial impact to the district

1:16:57 should someone sue the district.

1:16:59 But I’m not overly concerned

1:17:01 with the result of that lawsuit.

1:17:03 - Right, so the law is very clear,

1:17:06 but that doesn’t stop in a politically divisive environment

1:17:10 from constituents doing that,

1:17:12 in which you will then take on the burden

1:17:14 and cost of that lawsuit.

1:17:17 Just want to make that clear to the public.

1:17:19 That’s your taxpayer money that we’re risking.

1:17:24 There was conversations about the schools don’t matter,

1:17:28 we could represent them all, yada, yada, yada.

1:17:31 But county commission lines also don’t take

1:17:33 into effect attendance boundaries either.

1:17:36 So I mean, that’s not a thing.

1:17:38 Nobody’s talking about trying to get the voters

1:17:41 and the students to live within your area

1:17:42 that also go to the school.

1:17:44 That’s like virtually impossible.

1:17:46 What it means is to have a balance of schools

1:17:48 in which those staff and parents and communities

1:17:52 can reach out to and establish

1:17:53 an easy consistent connection with.

1:17:56 That’s all that that means.

1:17:57 It doesn’t have to do with the voters

1:17:59 literally living inside of your district.

1:18:01 And I think that’s a really reasonable concept and request.

1:18:05 I think that’s what you’re going to hear

1:18:07 from the people who are potentially going to be displaced

1:18:09 by a decision of adopting the county commission lines.

1:18:13 The increase of staff time, no.

1:18:17 That’s the point of hiring potentially

1:18:20 an outside consultant agency.

1:18:23 Ms. Han, when she met with us individually,

1:18:25 I would assume she had the same conversation with everyone,

1:18:28 not just with me, requested and recommended

1:18:31 that it go outside of the district

1:18:33 to not increase staff time.

1:18:35 So that shouldn’t be a concern at all.

1:18:39 And again, the increase of cost.

1:18:41 This is a drop in the bucket of our budget.

1:18:44 This is the responsibility that we have statutorily

1:18:47 to our constituents and the taxpayers who fund our budget.

1:18:50 And again, if you have someone bring a lawsuit

1:18:55 to those two districts,

1:18:56 you’re going to eat that cost instantly.

1:19:01 - All right, thank you.

1:19:04 Ms. Han, I think you have a majority of individuals

1:19:06 that want to move forward with the county commission seats.

1:19:08 So with that, what would you like us to do?

1:19:10 - Yes sir, the only question I have remaining

1:19:12 is I was contemplating a public engagement process

1:19:16 similar to what we did with the attendance boundaries

1:19:18 where we have a QR code and access on the website

1:19:20 to a Google document where people can comment

1:19:22 and then we would provide that to the board

1:19:24 at the time of adoption.

1:19:26 Looking at either May 30th or June 13th,

1:19:29 do you have a preference?

1:19:31 - So we make the action,

1:19:34 you would bring it forward on May 30th?

1:19:38 - Yes sir.

1:19:39 - I think May 30th would be the correct time.

1:19:41 And the issue that we have is that we’re gonna be,

1:19:45 let’s talk about how that communication goes out,

1:19:48 you know what I mean?

1:19:49 - Can I, I just wanted to get a chance to speak back

1:19:51 for one second in regards to some of the things

1:19:53 that were said.

1:19:55 Ms. Campbell, one of the things,

1:19:56 and I guess I haven’t clearly conveyed this,

1:19:58 the reason that I like the county commissioner’s plan

1:20:01 so much is that there is room for variance for growth.

1:20:03 It gets us well below that 10% mark

1:20:05 that we’re supposed to be at.

1:20:07 It’s 8.5, but I mean, it gets us below it,

1:20:09 so there is room for growth with it.

1:20:12 And I don’t know, I guess I didn’t accurately convey

1:20:15 that to you.

1:20:16 One of the other things I guess that was said

1:20:18 was in regards to the amount of voters,

1:20:19 which you took care of that, it’s not 100,000 voters,

1:20:22 it’s 40 something thousand voters that it potentially

1:20:25 impacts, but again, of those voters,

1:20:28 I would love to see all 40,000 of them vote

1:20:30 in an election, but they don’t.

1:20:32 That’s the reality when it comes to things that are

1:20:34 school board related usually.

1:20:36 So again, this, to me, I think it makes the most sense,

1:20:39 but I understand why you guys feel differently about it.

1:20:42 I’m just telling you that’s where I’m at with it.

1:20:46 - All right, thank you very much.

1:20:50 Next work session is on board policy 3500 remote work.

1:20:58 - Yes sir, thank you.

1:20:59 The board had asked us to accelerate that,

1:21:01 and Ms. Green has done so.

1:21:03 And if you have any comments or questions about–

1:21:07 - I can’t tell you how excited I am about this.

1:21:10 This is an argument in my private side

1:21:12 that we fight all the time, and I don’t like it there,

1:21:14 but I really like it here, so.

1:21:17 - We believe it’s going to be good for the district as well,

1:21:20 so. - Yeah.

1:21:22 Thank you.

1:21:23 Do you need a microphone? - She does.

1:21:24 - I think Mr. Broome’s coming up on this.

1:21:26 - Can you step aside and let Dr., oh, got it, thank you.

1:21:29 - Mr. Susan, Ms. Hand, board.

1:21:32 At the request of the board, we have fast tracked

1:21:36 our remote work policy.

1:21:38 This particular policy is not required

1:21:40 by any Florida statute, but by the availability

1:21:44 and the things we’re able to do now in the remote world.

1:21:48 We have had a pilot over the last year

1:21:50 that has been implemented

1:21:52 in our educational technology department.

1:21:56 And the pilot, this is a policy

1:22:02 that they have been working on for a year,

1:22:04 so we have a little bit of background and work behind us.

1:22:08 And in this policy, you find the forms that are required,

1:22:12 the approval processes that are required,

1:22:14 and the eligibility list for the non-bargaining personnel

1:22:18 that are eligible for the remote work.

1:22:22 It follows the NEOLA templates,

1:22:24 and the administrative procedures

1:22:27 are Brevard’s implementation processes.

1:22:32 - Thank you, Ms. Green.

1:22:33 Is there anybody that wishes to speak on this topic?

1:22:37 - Yeah, I just, I wanna say thank you.

1:22:41 I think you probably were in the room

1:22:42 when I was having these conversations over and over again

1:22:45 about how important I think this is for us

1:22:48 to modify and change the way we look

1:22:51 at some of our positions here at BPS

1:22:55 in order to keep up with the ever-growing,

1:22:59 changing environment in the industry around us

1:23:01 that is pulling our staff members

1:23:03 and making it more and more difficult for us

1:23:04 to recruit and retain our staff members,

1:23:07 so thank you for working on this so quickly.

1:23:09 I appreciate it.

1:23:10 - Thank you.

1:23:13 Thank you, Dr. Green.

1:23:14 I just wanted to make one request,

1:23:17 ‘cause I didn’t see this job description specifically.

1:23:21 Down at the bottom, you had a list of the employees

1:23:22 who are or are not eligible.

1:23:25 Can you please make sure the administrative assistant

1:23:27 to the board is included in those who are eligible?

1:23:30 - It was, a new list was uploaded this morning.

1:23:33 We had missed some people in the mostly vacant positions,

1:23:37 and so we have cleaned that up,

1:23:39 and she was the first one who noticed that.

1:23:40 (laughing)

1:23:41 - She’s looking for her name.

1:23:43 - All right.

1:23:44 - I think she uploaded that this morning.

1:23:45 - Awesome, thank you.

1:23:48 Oh, I see it right there.

1:23:49 It’s number two.

1:23:50 - Yeah, it’s right there.

1:23:53 - Mr. Trent.

1:23:56 - No, again, I just think it’s catching up to times,

1:23:58 and thank you for the work.

1:24:02 I hope we use this as a marketing tool,

1:24:03 ‘cause I think this will actually attract

1:24:05 some people to our district that will look at this

1:24:07 and say, hey, a remote opportunity to work

1:24:09 is something that they’re interested in,

1:24:10 so I’m excited about this.

1:24:11 - I can tell you Mr. Cheatham is just waiting

1:24:13 for that opportunity.

1:24:14 - Yeah, IT is like, yes, so they’re cheering us on,

1:24:16 so we’re excited about this.

1:24:17 Thank you so much.

1:24:18 - I think a sentiment of the board members,

1:24:21 IT was specifically losing people in interviews

1:24:25 because other companies are going remote,

1:24:28 and there’s a couple people

1:24:29 that are pretty high up in our organization

1:24:30 that we’re gonna possibly go to another place

1:24:32 because it’s based upon this,

1:24:34 so I’m really proud moving forward.

1:24:36 I thank the pilot group.

1:24:37 I thank all of your work, Ms. Green.

1:24:39 I think that this is a great thing, so thank you very much.

1:24:41 I think we’re all in positive support,

1:24:43 so move forth and do great things, right?

1:24:47 Next work session is board policy 5511,

1:24:51 dressing and grooming.

1:24:54 - Yes, sir.

1:24:56 Mr. Gibbs had sent some additional information

1:24:58 out to board members, some survey results as requested

1:25:00 by the board.

1:25:01 I think we’re ready to discuss that.

1:25:03 Dr. Bradley was not able to be here with us today,

1:25:05 but we’ll do our best to try to respond to questions

1:25:07 if Dr. Cody would mind joining us at the table.

1:25:12 - I think everybody’s aware, and maybe the public’s not,

1:25:15 that there was a survey that went out to our students,

1:25:17 and it came back with a lot of responses.

1:25:19 I think that that was a great idea.

1:25:22 In the process of doing this,

1:25:23 I think my concern has always been

1:25:25 that we’re able to do this ahead of the next year,

1:25:28 and it’s been indicated from staff

1:25:29 that we definitely can take this in like we should

1:25:32 and move forward.

1:25:33 I think even though the students are not part of our policy

1:25:37 or our voter group, they are our voter group.

1:25:40 So they’re part of our demographics,

1:25:41 and we should listen to them as much as possible,

1:25:43 so great idea.

1:25:46 I open the floor for conversation.

1:25:48 Ms. Jenkins, do you wanna go first?

1:25:53 Are you guys presenting anything?

1:25:54 I mean, I think–

1:25:55 - I don’t think we’re prepared to present anything,

1:25:57 and Dr. Wylie’s absent, so–

1:25:58 - That’s what I thought.

1:25:59 - You have some comments, we’ll follow up.

1:26:00 - I feel like we had a healthy conversation last time,

1:26:02 I think it was right there.

1:26:03 - Yep, Ms. Campbell?

1:26:07 Okay, Mr. Trent?

1:26:09 - No, I just wanna hear what they have to say.

1:26:12 - Ms. Jenkins.

1:26:13 - So, I’m Ms. Wright.

1:26:14 - Oh, I’m sorry, I was gonna say, go ahead.

1:26:17 - I would just like to say

1:26:18 that we have a lot of responses that we got,

1:26:21 and these came in yesterday afternoon,

1:26:23 I think around 5 p.m.

1:26:25 So, in all– - Can you see them all?

1:26:28 - Yeah, in transparency here,

1:26:29 I have not had the chance to process through

1:26:31 150 pages of comments that we have in this spreadsheet here.

1:26:37 So, I wanna hear what the students have to say,

1:26:40 because this is gonna directly impact them.

1:26:42 And so, I think we talked about this a little bit last time

1:26:44 on the fact that maybe we should move this

1:26:46 one more meeting out, just to give adequate time

1:26:48 to go through everything,

1:26:49 and make sure we’re getting this right.

1:26:51 Mr. Gibbs, that will still keep us on the same timeline

1:26:54 in order to–

1:26:55 - We’ll push it, we’ll have to re-advertise and push it,

1:26:57 but we can move it to the work,

1:26:59 have this work session, and on May 9th,

1:27:02 it’ll go public hearing May 30th for final approval,

1:27:05 June, I think, 11th.

1:27:07 - And that would still be well before school starts, so.

1:27:08 - Yeah, and Dr. Webley confirmed that that would still

1:27:10 be time to incorporate those changes

1:27:12 into the code of conduct,

1:27:13 which is right now out for revisions.

1:27:16 So, this month, they’re working on those,

1:27:18 or through May, they’re working on those revisions.

1:27:21 Those revisions are due, I believe, May 1st, right, Chris?

1:27:24 - Somewhere around there?

1:27:26 - Okay.

1:27:27 - So, we had a conversation, sorry, you’re good, I–

1:27:29 - You had a conversation,

1:27:30 we just had a conversation about printing,

1:27:32 and actually, I think maybe I was a little out of date,

1:27:34 that we don’t actually print the dress code

1:27:37 in the planners, it’s all virtual, digital.

1:27:41 - Dr. Webley said they print on request,

1:27:43 so if there’s somebody that wants them,

1:27:44 and they might print, like, so many to put

1:27:47 in their front office, so you can grab them, but–

1:27:49 - Well, and the truth is, I thought about it,

1:27:51 the dress code is different at many schools,

1:27:53 so, because they can have tighter uniforms, whatever.

1:27:57 No, I’m in agreement, I think we need to spend

1:28:00 our due diligence looking over this data,

1:28:03 and look at some more red lines,

1:28:05 and I know I’ve had some more community feedback, too,

1:28:07 and talked to some principals, too,

1:28:09 and so, I’m in favor of moving it off one more.

1:28:13 - I think, if I can be correct on this,

1:28:16 you would, even though the component of this,

1:28:19 we do need to have some sort of a policy ready

1:28:22 for the next board meeting, so that we,

1:28:25 what I think the proper process would be

1:28:26 for us to review these, and then set an individual meeting

1:28:29 with either Ms. Han or Ms. Cody, and say,

1:28:31 these are the things that we’re seeing,

1:28:33 and then you bring back to that meeting the next,

1:28:37 is that about the correct process, you’re thinking?

1:28:39 - You could do it that way, I know in the packet

1:28:40 that I sent yesterday, Student Services and Dr. Webley

1:28:44 provided me a red line that they tried to incorporate

1:28:48 a lot of the changes into it, so you can look at that

1:28:50 as well, and say you agree or you don’t agree with it

1:28:52 when you meet with staff, and that would be fun.

1:28:55 - If everybody’s okay with that kind of a direction,

1:28:58 you know what I mean, I think that that’s pretty good,

1:28:59 ‘cause I’m reading, and I want the public to understand

1:29:03 that there’s this conception out there

1:29:05 that the students are advocating for, like, less dress code,

1:29:09 and it’s, and if you read some of these,

1:29:11 there are some of those, but there’s completely the opposite

1:29:13 where many of our students are actually saying,

1:29:16 stop this from going on, and I was the,

1:29:19 I mean, you look at number one, I mean, it’s pretty good,

1:29:22 so I think that there’s a good response from our students,

1:29:26 and if that’s okay with the direction,

1:29:28 I think that that would be the best thing,

1:29:29 just understand, board members, that when this thing

1:29:32 gets published in, you know what I mean, in seven days

1:29:34 or whenever for the next one, before March or May 9th,

1:29:37 that if there’s any changes that need to be made,

1:29:38 we need to get it ahead of the actual meeting

1:29:40 so that it’s in there, and I think there’s gonna be

1:29:42 some more meetings added, so it might have a shorter window

1:29:47 when you go to notice because of the extra meetings

1:29:50 that are being noticed anyway, so it’s not gonna hurt us

1:29:52 by waiting an entire meeting anyway.

1:29:54 - When I advertise it this week,

1:29:56 it’s gonna be on that schedule, so.

1:29:58 - Yeah, it’s fine. - I have to advertise it

1:29:59 for those dates. - Yep, and we’ll have

1:30:01 those dates probably by the end of the day.

1:30:02 - So you’re gonna advertise it for a workshop on May 9th,

1:30:04 or you’re gonna advertise, okay.

1:30:05 - This is the board’s opportunity to make changes,

1:30:08 so this meeting will now move to May 9th,

1:30:10 and then the first public hearing will be May 30th,

1:30:13 so that’s where, if you make changes to that,

1:30:15 we’re re-advertising and kicking it off again, so.

1:30:18 - Okay. - So wait,

1:30:19 so we normally have like a workshop like this.

1:30:21 - That’ll be May 9th. - Right.

1:30:22 - And you can make changes.

1:30:24 - If we don’t make changes,

1:30:25 it can go that night. - If you don’t make changes

1:30:26 there on May 30th, you cannot make changes,

1:30:28 otherwise we would start over again.

1:30:30 - Right, our next workshop, we need to be prepared

1:30:31 for the changes that we wanna see in the policy.

1:30:34 - And then if it goes through that policy,

1:30:36 when’s the final date that it gets approved?

1:30:37 - The first one in June would be

1:30:39 the public hearing number two.

1:30:40 - Which will give us enough time.

1:30:42 Because the other thing is we’re not just printing something

1:30:43 that we’re handing to people, we also have to educate staff,

1:30:46 we have to create all the other pieces.

1:30:48 That takes a little bit of time.

1:30:49 So I think the direction’s great.

1:30:51 I like some of these responses.

1:30:54 And so if you guys are okay,

1:30:55 does anybody else have any comments on this one?

1:30:58 - We got some funny responses.

1:30:59 We have somebody who’s advocating for clown shoes.

1:31:01 - Listen, listen, I think these are kind of funny.

1:31:05 All right, thank you, everybody did pretty good on this one.

1:31:08 With nothing else, the next topic

1:31:10 is conscious discipline discussion.

1:31:14 - Yes sir, Mrs. Wright had asked

1:31:16 for board discussion on this item,

1:31:18 and we have just provided some information

1:31:20 as to where we are with the program.

1:31:22 Happy to answer any questions that you may have.

1:31:25 - Okay, give me just one second.

1:31:26 Sorry, I’m trying to pull it up.

1:31:39 All right, the main reason I wanted to bring this up

1:31:41 was at the last board meeting,

1:31:43 I brought up the question about conscious discipline

1:31:45 and the cost that we were going to incur

1:31:46 to put 225 of our educators

1:31:49 through conscious discipline training,

1:31:50 and felt that we could possibly look at taking those funds

1:31:55 and using that for a different type of training.

1:31:58 So I’m glad that staff has put together something

1:32:02 that now looks like we currently

1:32:05 have purchased conscious discipline.

1:32:06 It’s something that’s not incurring any additional cost

1:32:09 for the schools that are currently participating in it.

1:32:11 Is that correct?

1:32:14 - I believe we had four or five sessions

1:32:17 towards like the last couple of weeks that were scheduled,

1:32:20 but that’s the only thing that we have

1:32:21 that we have that we’ll need to pay for.

1:32:24 - Okay, in regards to the funds that were allocated,

1:32:28 those, I thought it was 225,000, but this is now,

1:32:33 I do have a question in regards to this last,

1:32:36 or page four of this presentation.

1:32:37 So it’s saying that the funds that were allocated

1:32:39 are now have been reallocated to different,

1:32:43 how does that happen just out of curiosity?

1:32:46 ‘Cause I thought that would come before us.

1:32:47 - So in our federal programs,

1:32:49 the board annually looks at our federal programs,

1:32:52 sort of scope of work.

1:32:53 Typically that’s done in June, July, August kind of timeframe

1:32:57 and then if there’s an amendment,

1:32:59 those amendments are approved by the superintendent.

1:33:01 So the board looks at the overall program

1:33:04 under the information agenda.

1:33:06 So there’s not actual board approval

1:33:09 of the title one, two, three, four, title nine programs.

1:33:15 But you do see it for any comments and perspective.

1:33:19 And then as they are amended through the course of the year,

1:33:22 those are amended through the superintendent’s office.

1:33:26 - Okay.

1:33:30 I guess my question still remains a little bit on,

1:33:33 ‘cause we were, it was presented before us

1:33:36 to approve the 225,000 for the Conscious Discipline.

1:33:39 And so I, again, I got several emails.

1:33:42 What do you plan on doing with this?

1:33:44 And so again, looking at different training programs

1:33:47 that are out there.

1:33:49 - So we still need to look at different training programs

1:33:51 that are out there.

1:33:52 There are other sources of funding, including this one,

1:33:55 that can be available for those other sources of funding.

1:33:58 This particular funding was a rollover,

1:34:01 rollover from the previous year,

1:34:02 so we needed to get it expended by August.

1:34:05 So that’s why we put it in as an amendment to get that done.

1:34:08 - Okay.

1:34:09 - But if there are other programs that we want to fund,

1:34:13 these federal programs are available to do so.

1:34:16 So those two are not mutually exclusive.

1:34:18 - Okay, all right.

1:34:20 Well, it’s something that I would like for us

1:34:22 to consider moving forward.

1:34:23 There’s several things that our district needs to look at.

1:34:27 One of the things that I’m very passionate about

1:34:29 is this K through three reading

1:34:30 that we need to focus in on.

1:34:32 And so I’ve been looking into the Orton-Gillingham program

1:34:35 as far as training some of our educators on this

1:34:37 and the success that they’ve had.

1:34:38 And so I just want us to be thinking about this

1:34:42 as I gather more information and bring it back forward,

1:34:45 because I think this is something that could be impactful

1:34:46 that we will see tremendous dividends on

1:34:49 over the course of years,

1:34:50 if we could focus on getting our teachers up to date

1:34:53 and trained on this.

1:34:55 - Hang on, let me just ask her.

1:34:56 So what I’m hearing you say in the charge to the board is,

1:35:01 there’s the money that was down there at the bottom on,

1:35:04 I think it was page four,

1:35:05 you had concerns about it going there

1:35:07 because you wanted to try to possibly reallocate

1:35:09 towards something else?

1:35:10 - Well, that is true,

1:35:11 but it sounds like from his hand, it’s not either or.

1:35:13 - Correct, correct.

1:35:15 So if there are other training programs

1:35:17 the board would like us to explore,

1:35:18 we have the opportunity to do so

1:35:20 as we’re developing our federal programs

1:35:22 for the upcoming years.

1:35:23 - Sounds good.

1:35:24 - Who decided, you decided this, right?

1:35:26 Somebody presented this to you or something.

1:35:27 I guess I just wasn’t clear on that process

1:35:29 on how that happened.

1:35:30 - So Dr. Sullivan and I got together on this

1:35:32 and she recommended that we could utilize the funds

1:35:35 in an expeditious manner for something we needed to do.

1:35:38 And so we purposed them in this manner.

1:35:41 - Okay, and the only reason is,

1:35:43 I mean, that money really was kind of earmarked

1:35:46 for professional development of some sort, right?

1:35:49 I mean, it’s a training.

1:35:50 - Can I?

1:35:52 - Please.

1:35:53 - Title four is actually not

1:35:54 our professional development grant, title two is.

1:35:58 The conscious discipline applied to title four

1:36:01 because of the second scope of work

1:36:03 that is targeted on student wellbeing,

1:36:05 discipline, counseling, and support.

1:36:07 So it actually fit into the grant,

1:36:09 not as a professional development item,

1:36:11 but as a discipline item.

1:36:13 The grant has three specific scopes

1:36:15 of which we can apply for.

1:36:17 So we generally will keep, we call it a graveyard

1:36:21 of things that we either underfund

1:36:23 or priorities that don’t make it.

1:36:25 And we try to always stick

1:36:26 with previously identified board priorities

1:36:29 to fill those gaps.

1:36:31 None of that’s been approved, just prioritizing,

1:36:34 but this grant is not the professional development grant.

1:36:36 We have a title two grant that is,

1:36:39 and then we can always adjust

1:36:41 and make professional development requirements.

1:36:43 Reading actually wouldn’t fit into the title four grant.

1:36:46 - It would not.

1:36:49 - All right, thank you for that.

1:36:50 - But there is, there’s, we can,

1:36:52 we generally will adjust based on the timelines.

1:36:56 And I feel really confident that if the board lands

1:36:59 on a different priority, as Ms. Han said,

1:37:01 we can work through the amendment process

1:37:04 and readjust priorities.

1:37:05 - Okay, yeah, all right, thank you.

1:37:07 - Thank you, Ms. Sullivan.

1:37:08 I think Ms. Campbell.

1:37:09 - Yep, so thank you for clarifying that

1:37:12 on the purposes of the title four grant.

1:37:14 I appreciate that.

1:37:15 And just to address, I think some were a concern

1:37:20 I heard in there, Ms. Wright.

1:37:21 You know, if any of these items are over 50,000,

1:37:23 it will come back to us, right?

1:37:26 That’s why the other one came to us

1:37:28 because it was within the scope of the grant,

1:37:30 but it was over $50,000.

1:37:32 So the superintendent can approve that by himself,

1:37:34 by herself.

1:37:36 The, I would just, last night, Mr. Susan,

1:37:40 Ms. Jenkins and myself attended the Bright-Nehemiah

1:37:46 Action, Nehemiah Action event.

1:37:48 - There’s a lot of stuff there.

1:37:49 - There was, yeah.

1:37:50 And so one of the things that they were challenged,

1:37:52 I don’t know if you guys got a chance to meet with Bright,

1:37:54 but they were talking about the science of reading.

1:37:55 And I had, I called Jane Klein yesterday and said,

1:37:58 “Hey, where are we on the science of reading?”

1:38:00 And she shared with me about the work

1:38:02 that we’re already doing to train our,

1:38:04 in this great body of research that’s come out,

1:38:08 you know, getting rid of the,

1:38:09 or looking past, you know, the three queuing method

1:38:11 and to this very specific.

1:38:13 So I, before we, I would encourage you

1:38:16 to talk to her about the training that we’ve launched into.

1:38:20 Specifically, it’s tackling phonics, phonemic awareness,

1:38:24 those five, I think they’re core things

1:38:27 that are part of that body of research, science of reading.

1:38:29 So I just encourage you to have that conversation with her

1:38:31 about what’s already being done in that realm.

1:38:35 - Gotcha.

1:38:38 - Okay.

1:38:39 Mr. Trepp.

1:38:44 - Well, I’m hoping we continue looking

1:38:48 at behavioral trainings with maybe the Title IV funds,

1:38:52 other programs.

1:38:53 I’m sure they’re, as soon as the vote came down last time,

1:38:57 they were thinking of what’s next.

1:38:59 I know I’ve gotten some calls on other programs.

1:39:02 So I look forward to that conversation also.

1:39:08 - Ms. Jenkins.

1:39:12 - I mean, I said my piece on this last time

1:39:13 we had this conversation.

1:39:15 I trust our staff, their expertise, their professionalism

1:39:18 to always present what they think is best

1:39:20 for our students and our staff.

1:39:23 Clearly, I believe that this was best

1:39:25 for our students and staff as well as they did.

1:39:28 So I think asking them to come back with some other program

1:39:32 so quickly is unrealistic.

1:39:36 It would be disingenuine of them to come forward

1:39:37 with something else that they don’t necessarily

1:39:39 have the buy-in themselves.

1:39:41 We also, as you can see at the beginning

1:39:43 of this presentation, are committed to,

1:39:46 because there is no refund,

1:39:48 132 participants still going through

1:39:51 conscious discipline training and implementing it

1:39:53 within their classrooms.

1:39:55 I said this last time, I think we didn’t ask our staff

1:39:58 in our schools that are using this program

1:40:00 how they feel about it being ceased.

1:40:02 So once it is, I think it would be in the best interest

1:40:05 of this board to ask the staff in the schools

1:40:07 how they feel when it is removed from their school

1:40:10 and how it’s impacting them.

1:40:13 - All right, and with that, I would say

1:40:14 that I have asked staff and I have moved through

1:40:16 and being a former teacher for nine years,

1:40:18 I know that part of getting a hold of discipline

1:40:21 is that you have some sort of classroom management

1:40:24 and there’s a lot of programs that we have

1:40:26 inside of our school district that are underfunded

1:40:28 that go into that regard.

1:40:29 I would say that for the past five, no,

1:40:32 probably four years, I’ve advocated absolutely

1:40:36 for a program that comes out of Escambia County

1:40:39 with amazing metrics and amazing results.

1:40:41 I think that we as a school district have an opportunity.

1:40:45 Ms. Han said that some of those are gonna be presented

1:40:48 to us on May 9th, I appreciate it.

1:40:49 And I think that there’s pretty much board consensus

1:40:52 to hold on actually spending any of that money

1:40:55 on robotics and all that other stuff

1:40:56 until we hear from the May 9th group

1:40:58 that we may be able to expand some of that.

1:41:01 You may wanna have somebody talk about

1:41:03 some of those other things that you were talking about.

1:41:05 Does that make sense?

1:41:06 So May 9th, there’s gonna be some opportunities

1:41:09 to come forward with presentations and stuff

1:41:11 that are already existing programs inside of our district

1:41:13 that might help that, is that about right Ms. Han?

1:41:15 - We’ve convened a little focus group of folks

1:41:18 that work on recruitment, retention, training.

1:41:21 So talking about kind of all of these issues

1:41:23 that blend together.

1:41:25 And so I think we can provide some briefings to you

1:41:28 as we’re working through the process,

1:41:30 but we’ve got, there’s a lot of moving parts.

1:41:34 It’s probably the best way to say it.

1:41:35 And all of these things relate to one another.

1:41:38 So as we talk through the discipline audit, for example,

1:41:41 there’s pieces of that that relate to pieces of this.

1:41:45 Our training, we’ve had a lot of conversation

1:41:47 with our teachers union about the types of training

1:41:49 that they would like to have.

1:41:51 So I’ve started to talk with our professional development

1:41:54 folks and trying to engage them with our student services

1:41:57 folks, our leading learning folks.

1:41:58 So we’re all talking together about the best way

1:42:00 to deliver these services.

1:42:02 - I think that’s a great conversation for all of us

1:42:04 to learn and see what’s out there

1:42:06 and see where the things is.

1:42:07 And it comes directly with what Ms. Jenkins had said,

1:42:10 where we listen to staff and they present to us

1:42:12 and we work from there.

1:42:13 I think that’s a good point.

1:42:14 - Just a second, ‘cause I, when you were summarizing,

1:42:16 it sounded like you were summarizing saying

1:42:18 that we all had consensus to put a hold on the robotics.

1:42:21 - Not all of us.

1:42:22 I said there was a consensus.

1:42:23 - Well, I didn’t know that we were,

1:42:25 I don’t think I weighed in on that.

1:42:26 - Well, it hasn’t been brought before us.

1:42:28 So I’m assuming that that’s just like kind of

1:42:30 what they’re planning on doing.

1:42:31 - No, that is different.

1:42:33 These is what, if you’re asking for,

1:42:35 there’s reallocating $240,000 to STEM robotics

1:42:39 and all this stuff.

1:42:40 What I thought I heard and I may have been incorrect

1:42:42 is that instead of allocating to them,

1:42:45 that we may be able to pause and use them towards

1:42:47 so that we’re not being restricted

1:42:48 into any of those type programs that we hear coming forward.

1:42:51 That was all.

1:42:53 - So the 240, we need,

1:42:56 we’ve already submitted the amendment to the state.

1:42:58 We’re waiting for the state to approve the amendment

1:43:00 and then we’d like to spend it on those items

1:43:02 that are in the presentation.

1:43:04 That’s roll forward money that we need to spend.

1:43:08 We still have a lot of opportunity to bring forward

1:43:12 different ideas on professional development

1:43:15 through our federal programs that we can present to you.

1:43:18 So those two things are not mutually exclusive

1:43:20 but I would recommend that we not pivot on the 240

1:43:26 at this point in time ‘cause I think we need to move forward

1:43:29 and these are things that we need to buy.

1:43:31 - Okay. - And the clock is ticking.

1:43:33 - And I think that for some of the public

1:43:36 to see what’s going on, I think one of the keys is

1:43:38 is that the board is realigning some of their priorities

1:43:41 and I think that that’s what’s happening is

1:43:43 and we are in the process of learning some of these

1:43:47 for the first time.

1:43:47 So thank you so much for allocating and understanding

1:43:51 and everything else.

1:43:52 I appreciate it. - And just in the interest

1:43:53 of transparency, if folks are interested

1:43:56 in what we’re doing with our federal programs,

1:43:58 there is information on our website.

1:44:01 The full application as to how these monies are being spent

1:44:04 as well as the amendments requested,

1:44:06 those are all on the website.

1:44:07 So if you go to departments and programs

1:44:09 and look under Title I, Title II, Title IV,

1:44:13 the information is there and available for the public to see.

1:44:16 - That’s awesome. - I just wanna add in here,

1:44:18 I thank you ‘cause I think this actually,

1:44:20 you mentioned this alliance of board priorities

1:44:23 that we have clearly said we want to be,

1:44:26 I’m gonna quote you, Mr. Susan,

1:44:27 “The district, this sends students to space.”

1:44:30 Not currently, like in their current form,

1:44:32 but in the future, send them to space.

1:44:34 And so STEM, robotics, CTE labs,

1:44:38 that very well aligns with what this board

1:44:41 has been consistent in saying, so good job.

1:44:43 - I have a request.

1:44:46 I would like, Mr. Susan, if you could inform

1:44:49 your fellow board members the schools that you visited

1:44:53 and if you have any correspondences with those staff

1:44:55 that feel a negative way towards it to share it with us,

1:44:57 because if we’re gonna be making decisions

1:44:59 about this going forward, it would be helpful for us all

1:45:02 to be privy to that same information.

1:45:03 - Are you speaking to conscious discipline now?

1:45:06 Is that what you’re saying, Ms. Jenkins?

1:45:07 I’m trying to figure out what you’re saying.

1:45:09 - Yes, Mr. Susan.

1:45:10 - I am not going to– - Point of order.

1:45:12 I’m not done, point of order.

1:45:14 Thank you.

1:45:14 - I asked you a question.

1:45:15 - Mr. Susan, I wasn’t done talking, thank you.

1:45:19 When I make a statement for us to do our due diligence

1:45:22 and ask our staff that we’re impacting

1:45:24 how they feel about a program being removed

1:45:26 and your rebuttal is that you already has,

1:45:28 as if that is end all, be all,

1:45:32 well then I think that the rest of the board

1:45:34 deserves to hear the responses that you had,

1:45:36 because I, too, was an educator for six years.

1:45:39 I, too, had personal experience with conscious discipline.

1:45:41 Clearly, my perspective is very different than yours.

1:45:44 And the perspective of our 4,500 teachers

1:45:47 is going to be very different as well and diverse.

1:45:49 And so, if you are hearing differently,

1:45:52 it would be beneficial for me to see those responses.

1:45:56 So yes, I am requesting this communication

1:45:59 that you claim that you had

1:46:01 to be shared with the entire board.

1:46:03 And if I get any communication,

1:46:05 I will do the same.

1:46:07 - Ms. Jenkins, I would remind you

1:46:09 that as soon as you start putting people’s names

1:46:12 and information out there, that they–

1:46:14 - You can absolutely redact it. - No, Ms. Jenkins,

1:46:15 I am finishing my answer to your question.

1:46:16 - Mr. Susan, do not raise your voice to me.

1:46:18 - You know what, forget it. - Thank you.

1:46:19 - Forget it, let’s move on. - You can redact their names,

1:46:20 Mr. Susan. - Let’s move on.

1:46:21 No, let’s move on.

1:46:22 All right, thank you so much, I appreciate it.

1:46:24 - It is your line.

1:46:29 - The next topic is MCOA recommendation, athletics follow-up.

1:46:34 - Yes, Sir, Dr. Sullivan will be briefing you on this topic.

1:46:54 - Working on a segue and I’m just struggling.

1:46:56 But one thing I do know is that we all really care

1:47:02 about the safety of our students.

1:47:04 A couple weeks ago, a month ago now,

1:47:06 I’m not sure, it’s a bit of a blur,

1:47:07 you all had a board presentation on athletics,

1:47:10 athletic issues, and athletic concerns.

1:47:13 Little did I know on that day

1:47:15 that I would be taking responsibility for athletics.

1:47:18 So in the past couple weeks,

1:47:21 I have worked alongside my directors, school principals,

1:47:24 athletic directors, and officials

1:47:27 to understand some of the immediate problems.

1:47:30 And one of the immediate problems at hand

1:47:33 is our contract with our Midcoast Officials Association.

1:47:38 And it’s an immediate issue, of course,

1:47:40 because we’ve got to get it in place

1:47:41 for the start of the year.

1:47:43 But there were some challenges

1:47:44 that really needed to be resolved,

1:47:46 particularly in terms of timeliness of pay of the officials,

1:47:50 if you all recall from that presentation.

1:47:53 And the reason for that delay,

1:47:55 there are just multiple points of failure, if you will.

1:47:59 In large part, the schools do not have the funds

1:48:02 to initiate the original purchase orders.

1:48:05 So typically in a situation in the fall,

1:48:08 you would enter a purchase order for the season

1:48:11 and pay against that purchase order.

1:48:12 That encumbers all of your funds.

1:48:15 And so many of our schools did not have enough funds

1:48:18 to even open the purchase order

1:48:20 to be able to pay against the invoices.

1:48:23 The second thing, of course,

1:48:24 is processing time with the Midcoast officials.

1:48:29 They have to essentially by hand enter every roster

1:48:34 for every school for every set of contests

1:48:36 to generate the invoice process.

1:48:39 Those invoices were handled very differently

1:48:41 at the different schools with very different outcomes.

1:48:45 The core of the issue comes down to finances.

1:48:49 Right now through athletic equity,

1:48:52 the board for the last several years

1:48:54 has been allocating around $200,000 a year

1:48:57 to try to help offset some of the fees.

1:49:01 As a former principal,

1:49:02 I can tell you that you got a couple of buckets.

1:49:04 If you have a home game, you have to pay officials.

1:49:07 If you have an away game, you have to pay transportation,

1:49:10 not to mention all of the other elements that come into it.

1:49:14 And so what I saw in the contract

1:49:16 is there was suggestions of decreasing officials

1:49:20 and recommendations that would, in my opinion,

1:49:24 be detrimental to the district

1:49:26 and allowing them to have less than recommended officials

1:49:29 just because of the cost.

1:49:31 And I think in my opinion, looking at the history of it,

1:49:35 that we need to consider increasing our funding commitment

1:49:39 to the schools to maintain a safe environment.

1:49:42 I know the board for several years has discussed

1:49:45 what does those funds look like?

1:49:47 What does equity look like?

1:49:48 And my recommendation

1:49:49 is that the district equitably fund all officials.

1:49:55 And so doing that serves two things.

1:49:58 One, it definitely increases the board commitment.

1:50:00 So the board commitment would increase

1:50:02 from $200,000 a year to $550,000 a year.

1:50:07 However, I think the district is very vulnerable

1:50:11 in the fact that we have paid those official bills

1:50:14 on the backs of ticket sales.

1:50:17 And for the vast majority of our sports,

1:50:20 the ticket sales has not come close

1:50:22 to covering the cost of the officials.

1:50:25 And safety really is weighing on me.

1:50:28 So I’ve been wearing this athletics hat

1:50:30 for just a couple of weeks,

1:50:31 but I wore it for a long time as a principal.

1:50:34 And just how we support this as a district

1:50:38 and how we’ve sort of left schools to fend for themselves

1:50:42 it has been weighing on me.

1:50:44 So my recommendation is the board consider

1:50:46 that increase to that allocation.

1:50:48 With that allocation at the district level,

1:50:51 we would manage all of the accounting logistics

1:50:56 and processing for the MCOA.

1:50:59 And I’ll just give you an example

1:51:01 of what that might look like.

1:51:02 And it’s something we do right now with dual enrollment

1:51:05 and some other funds.

1:51:06 So the invoices would come to us,

1:51:09 the newly hired county athletic director

1:51:12 would cross reference those.

1:51:13 We would pay those invoices out.

1:51:15 We do it with school nurses.

1:51:16 We do it with dual enrollment.

1:51:17 We do it with a ton of different areas.

1:51:20 It’s not problematic.

1:51:22 We love spreadsheets.

1:51:23 So we’ll keep lots of detailed records

1:51:25 on the different amounts.

1:51:27 Right now for the average of the last two years,

1:51:29 officials have cost us around $528,000.

1:51:33 I’m recommending $550,000 just because I’m unclear.

1:51:38 And for this first year, until we get a tighter reign,

1:51:41 we’ve added sports.

1:51:42 And I wanna make sure that there’s appropriate funding there.

1:51:46 The reason we are bringing this recommendation to you

1:51:49 in advance of the other recommendations

1:51:52 is the contract process with MCOA.

1:51:55 And so we’re looking for that informal three thumbs up

1:52:00 to build out the contract under that expectation.

1:52:06 In terms of funding possibilities in discussion,

1:52:10 of course, extensive discussions with Ms. Hand,

1:52:13 this is something that could be Fund 100

1:52:16 or could be millage as well to be determined

1:52:19 because athletic support was one of our identified areas

1:52:24 in what we gave to the voters

1:52:26 on that program development bucket,

1:52:28 that bucket B that we’re calling B1 to be specific.

1:52:34 And so we know that that’s something that could look at,

1:52:37 but in terms of developing out the system

1:52:39 to begin the contracting in the fall,

1:52:42 we’re asking the board for any questions or follow up

1:52:45 or if they–

1:52:47 feel strongly against adding the funds towards athletics.

1:52:50 I’d let you know we need to know that

1:52:51 and go back to the drawing board

1:52:53 or feeling confident that the board could take it.

1:52:56 From my lens as a principal of a school

1:52:59 without a lot of money in the past,

1:53:02 the equity of just knowing that your officials are covered

1:53:05 is huge.

1:53:06 I went out to all the principals

1:53:08 and it’s just unilateral support as you can imagine.

1:53:12 The time and effort and processing on the schools,

1:53:15 they would very much appreciate the help

1:53:17 in trying to manage that.

1:53:20 As well as just one less thing

1:53:23 because in my opinion having officials at every contest

1:53:28 is not something that should be second guessed

1:53:31 based on the difficulties they’re having with finance.

1:53:34 And so I just asked the board for their consideration.

1:53:37 Happy to answer any questions within my couple weeks

1:53:40 on this hat.

1:53:42 But again, lots of years on the school-based hat

1:53:45 of trying to do it and to move forward

1:53:48 and working out the contract with the officials.

1:53:51 - Thank you, Dr. Sullivans.

1:53:52 Anybody wish to comment on this?

1:53:55 Mr. Trent?

1:53:56 - We’re good.

1:53:57 - So this would cover middle schools as well?

1:53:59 - Yes, ma’am.

1:54:00 - Yep.

1:54:01 - And then, so really, I mean,

1:54:03 you were talking about a seismic shift,

1:54:05 but a big shift because not only would we be taking care

1:54:09 of that, that all those ticket sales then would be able,

1:54:11 the schools would be able to use this

1:54:12 to pour back into the programs to buy equipment.

1:54:14 - Exactly.

1:54:15 - And pay for training and all the other things

1:54:17 that they have to cover.

1:54:18 - Exactly.

1:54:19 So right now, high school, for example,

1:54:23 an average high school has been receiving about $12,000

1:54:26 in that $200,000 bucket.

1:54:29 The officials’ bills are typically between 35 and 40,000.

1:54:34 So out of the money that’s coming into the program,

1:54:37 the vast majority of it is going out to officials.

1:54:40 And so things like transportation, you know, balls,

1:54:45 things that you need, safety equipment,

1:54:47 there are a lot of things that have to get cut

1:54:49 ‘cause you have to pay for officials.

1:54:52 And so our families that are raising money,

1:54:56 all of those things that are, you know,

1:54:57 I think about the communities and yeah,

1:55:01 it understand that you have to raise money

1:55:02 for like the nicer uniform or the fancy bat,

1:55:07 but you would hope not for the bare bones execution

1:55:11 of the activity.

1:55:12 And so by taking that burden and as a district being clear,

1:55:17 like, you know, we can’t necessarily support athletics

1:55:22 and activities at how we would all hope and dream,

1:55:25 but from a safety point of view,

1:55:26 we’re gonna cover officials in every site.

1:55:28 I just think it’s really important.

1:55:30 - Yeah, thank you for answering that question.

1:55:32 I appreciate it and I’m in support.

1:55:33 - Thank you.

1:55:36 - Anybody else?

1:55:36 - I too am in support.

1:55:38 So I met with the former athletic director

1:55:40 and I don’t know if his stats were true,

1:55:41 but what he said to me was that 9,000

1:55:44 of our high school students,

1:55:46 approximately 13.5% of them participate in a sport.

1:55:50 So he said that this is a tremendous amount

1:55:53 of our population.

1:55:54 And then not to mention, we have a lot of state champs

1:55:56 and a lot of different sporting arenas.

1:55:58 So I 100% support that.

1:56:00 I’m glad that this is something

1:56:01 that we can take off of the schools

1:56:02 and I think it’ll help support the children

1:56:04 in the athletics department.

1:56:05 So thank you for bringing this forward.

1:56:07 This will be a good thing.

1:56:07 - Thank you.

1:56:10 - Absolutely, this should be something

1:56:12 that’s done at the district level.

1:56:15 I will burden you with all the ideas in education

1:56:19 or in athletics, I’m hoping the new person

1:56:23 in that position, we have lots to talk about,

1:56:26 about what the individual schools can do

1:56:27 with the gate money, even the cost of students

1:56:31 entering events would really like to see that nearly nothing.

1:56:36 We need more kids,

1:56:37 more students taking advantage of activities.

1:56:41 But on this part, thank you for doing this.

1:56:45 - Thank you. - Ms. Jenkins.

1:56:47 - You obviously have my support and thank you again

1:56:49 for putting another hat on top of your rack.

1:56:52 Appreciate you.

1:56:53 - Thank you. - Thank you.

1:56:54 I think, I’m not sure, but there was another official group

1:57:00 that was coming in that was like basketball.

1:57:03 They had started conversations about six, eight months ago.

1:57:07 I’ll have them contact you just to make sure that,

1:57:10 ‘cause I know the MCOA has won,

1:57:12 but there was another group that because of the,

1:57:15 because of what we were doing had decimated the amount

1:57:17 of umpires, referees and stuff in certain sports

1:57:20 to where the MCOA could not, you know what I mean,

1:57:23 give some, they were having troubles.

1:57:24 So this other group came in.

1:57:25 So I just remembered that.

1:57:27 So I’ll get them in contact to make sure

1:57:28 that in the event that they’re in there,

1:57:30 I think the guy’s named Scooter.

1:57:31 He’s from Titusville.

1:57:33 He runs, he, yeah.

1:57:35 - Sounds about right. - Hey, thanks.

1:57:37 - I’ll be in touch with that, but I–

1:57:39 - I’ll add it to the list.

1:57:41 - But no, he’s a really good guy.

1:57:43 Anyway, so this is also, just so everybody knows,

1:57:47 this is a big deal because if we centralize this

1:57:50 and pay it out of the school district,

1:57:51 we have referees that are getting paid on a regular basis

1:57:54 and more routine rather than the other piece,

1:57:56 which was killing us for retention and recruitment

1:57:59 because we were losing reps

1:58:00 because they were sometimes waiting months

1:58:02 to get paid for like repping a game, which was unfair.

1:58:05 Dr. Sullivan, this is huge.

1:58:07 Thank you so much.

1:58:07 I really appreciate it.

1:58:09 And the emphasis on safety is 100% right.

1:58:12 - We appreciate it.

1:58:13 And we’ll certainly work towards the contract

1:58:16 now that we know we have the board permission

1:58:19 working very well with Mr. Muzzy and we will proceed.

1:58:24 Thank you.

1:58:25 - Thank you, Dr. Sullivan.

1:58:26 The next up is a topic of a draft charter

1:58:28 independent citizens committee for millage oversight.

1:58:32 Is that you, Ms. Sue?

1:58:33 - Yes, sir, I’m gonna introduce this.

1:58:35 Ms. Lisinski and Mr. Gibbs and I worked on this together.

1:58:38 We modeled this after the independent

1:58:40 citizens oversight committee for the sales surtax.

1:58:43 It’s recognizing that the millage is a little bit different

1:58:45 because it’s more on the operation side

1:58:47 and there’s quite a bit that goes on the compensation side

1:58:49 versus the capital side.

1:58:50 But just to kind of run through some of the highlights,

1:58:54 the purpose of the independent citizens oversight committee

1:58:57 very similar is simply to oversee, not direct,

1:59:02 but to review how the millage is spent.

1:59:07 The term, we talked about it and felt like in this case

1:59:10 because the millage is a four year program

1:59:13 that we would, the term of office we would recommend

1:59:16 be the full four years.

1:59:17 And then if it needed to be extended,

1:59:19 the board could do that at that time.

1:59:20 But seemed like a better idea to just have it coincident

1:59:24 with the entire term of the millage.

1:59:25 One of the challenges I have

1:59:27 with the surtax citizens oversight committee

1:59:29 is the terms are staggered in two years

1:59:31 and it just, it gets very confusing.

1:59:33 So this would keep the group together

1:59:35 for the full four years.

1:59:38 Like the surtax, we recommended annual reports

1:59:41 to both the board and the audit committee

1:59:43 as we do with the surtax with intermittent reports.

1:59:47 Recommended a minimum quarterly, not, I’m sorry,

1:59:50 not gonna say that, not quarterly,

1:59:52 but a minimum four times a year

1:59:54 with the way the millage revenue comes in quarterly

1:59:57 may not make exact sense.

1:59:59 So we might make more sense to have a January meeting

2:00:03 and a February meeting and then an August meeting,

2:00:05 something like that versus strict quarterly.

2:00:08 So we just said minimum of four times per year.

2:00:11 With the surtax, it says quarterly

2:00:14 and we actually meet six times per year

2:00:16 because that I think benefits us

2:00:18 to have the group be together every other month.

2:00:21 May not be the same with the surtax or with the millage

2:00:23 because of the big revenue that comes in in December

2:00:28 versus the surtax is every month.

2:00:31 So that the revenue stream is a little bit different.

2:00:34 We did recommend a similar membership structure,

2:00:37 no less than seven, no more than 11 members.

2:00:39 That’s worked really well

2:00:40 with the surtax citizens oversight committee.

2:00:45 The qualifications for the members would be folks

2:00:50 that are in fields relating to the purpose of the millage.

2:00:53 On the surtax side, it was a little more capital oriented.

2:00:57 So we had construction finance type folks,

2:01:00 but on the millage side, I think it’s a little bit broader.

2:01:04 So we left it much more broad.

2:01:07 The terms would be again,

2:01:09 starting July 1st through June 30th, 2027.

2:01:14 And I believe that sums up the points in the charter.

2:01:20 I’d like to get this on an upcoming board agenda

2:01:24 because I’d like to get it approved.

2:01:26 And then the next item,

2:01:27 I’ll talk a little bit about how we solicit members,

2:01:29 but I’d like to get going

2:01:31 so that we do have this body seated in July.

2:01:35 - Everybody okay with just giving her the thumbs up

2:01:36 to move on it?

2:01:37 - Yeah, absolutely.

2:01:38 - Okay, we’re good.

2:01:40 - Thank you very much.

2:01:41 And then the follow on item is the member selection process.

2:01:45 Some of you may have been here when we did the surtax.

2:01:49 I know Mr. Seuss and you were a part

2:01:51 of that selection process as a member,

2:01:54 but this was kind of done independently

2:01:57 in terms of the initial proffering of candidates

2:02:00 for the independent oversight committee to the board.

2:02:04 I’ve talked with Ms. Kershaw and met with the board

2:02:06 at Brevard School Foundation.

2:02:08 They are willing to take on the vetting process

2:02:11 so the applications would be sent to them.

2:02:13 They would review the applications

2:02:15 and present a recommended slate of members

2:02:18 to the school board.

2:02:19 There’s lots of other ways to do this,

2:02:21 but I thought I would propose one way

2:02:23 that we could do that that is somewhat independent

2:02:26 from the school board to create

2:02:28 that initial independent group.

2:02:32 - Okay.

2:02:34 - They’ll bring back the recommendations of who,

2:02:36 once they vet the candidates,

2:02:38 and then we at that point will select.

2:02:39 - Yes, the school board makes the actual selection.

2:02:42 The Brevard Schools Foundation

2:02:44 or another independent group would vet the applications,

2:02:47 review them, and make a recommendation to you.

2:02:50 - Thank you.

2:02:51 - So I just had a question ‘cause I was looking,

2:02:54 when I was reading the last agenda,

2:02:56 I was like, well, how did that first group get picked?

2:02:58 ‘Cause now what we do is with the ICOC,

2:03:01 if someone rotates off or they resign or whatever,

2:03:05 then the ICOC takes the applications

2:03:07 and they pick their own members.

2:03:08 And that’s how it would be set forward in the future.

2:03:11 So, but with this other, with the ICOC,

2:03:16 the group was selected by the chambers

2:03:22 and Kevin was that, so are we talking about

2:03:25 just forgoing that?

2:03:27 - That became a process in and of itself.

2:03:32 I wasn’t here when that happened either.

2:03:34 So I don’t fully know, but my understanding of that process

2:03:38 is it was a process to select the process

2:03:40 and got a little bit unwieldy.

2:03:44 So I felt like this was a good option

2:03:47 that already includes community members

2:03:50 that could take a look at the potential applications.

2:03:53 But there were certainly other options

2:03:54 if the board would like us to do something different.

2:03:56 - Okay, and then just again, going back to the charter then,

2:04:01 if there were to be any vacancies

2:04:03 because someone resigned or moved away,

2:04:05 or we renew it and somebody tried not to re-up,

2:04:09 then that would be just like the AOC,

2:04:11 the actual committee would select their own members.

2:04:15 - Go through the Citizens Oversight Committee

2:04:16 to review applications and then make a recommendation

2:04:19 to the board for the appointment.

2:04:20 - Okay, so you’re right.

2:04:21 So the Bar schools foundation would just be

2:04:23 the kind of like FSBA and our superintendent search.

2:04:26 They’re the ones taking the applications

2:04:28 and organizing them for us?

2:04:30 - Correct.

2:04:30 - Okay, thank you.

2:04:34 - Anybody else?

2:04:36 I think you’re good to go.

2:04:36 - Good to go?

2:04:37 - Yep.

2:04:38 - All right, thank you very much.

2:04:39 - All right.

2:04:41 - Next up is the review the 2000 policies.

2:04:47 If you guys want to take a second,

2:04:51 I think an hour and a half.

2:04:53 - Oh, we got a 4.30?

2:04:53 - They cut me down there?

2:04:54 - No.

2:04:58 - You guys want to take a break for a couple minutes?

2:04:59 - Yes.

2:05:00 - All right, let’s take a five minute break

2:05:02 and get back here quick.

2:05:11 (upbeat music)

2:05:41 (upbeat music continues)

2:14:34 - Welcome back, everybody.

2:14:36 Wanted to take a look at our 2000s.

2:14:40 You can bring up Paul’s email that has the Neola templates.

2:14:44 And if you guys take a look at these,

2:14:46 there’s, as I was going through them,

2:14:48 there’s probably about four or five

2:14:50 that really have revisions.

2:14:51 And then the rest of them are just updates

2:14:54 to make sure that they’re with statute.

2:14:55 You know what I mean?

2:14:56 Like there’s, and some of them have been updated.

2:14:58 I think we’re going to slowly start to get into that where.

2:15:01 - There’s 23 that have been updated.

2:15:02 - Yep. Yep.

2:15:04 So I think if we just kind of move through

2:15:06 the Neola template and then do this,

2:15:08 we should move pretty quickly.

2:15:10 The way I’ll do it is I’ll just bring it up.

2:15:11 I’ll say, does anybody wish to go with the Neola, whatever,

2:15:14 and then we’ll move to the next one,

2:15:15 just like we were doing.

2:15:16 So the first one up is policy 2105.

2:15:23 And it’s our mission statement.

2:15:26 The one that has from Neola, I think is too cumbersome

2:15:29 and goes a little into all kinds of stuff.

2:15:32 And I think the one we have is good for now.

2:15:36 - What just happened?

2:15:37 My computer just freaked out, sorry.

2:15:41 - You’re good?

2:15:42 - Yep.

2:15:43 - Are you okay? - Yeah, I’m fine

2:15:44 with those first ones. - Good.

2:15:45 All right.

2:15:47 Good with that, Paul, move on.

2:15:49 Okay.

2:15:50 Next one is 2110, 2110 statement of philosophy.

2:15:54 Again, it references the standard policy on top of it.

2:16:00 I think, what’s that?

2:16:03 - So I figured this out after our last meeting.

2:16:06 If you go down to the bottom of the Neola version,

2:16:07 it says last modified by Tammy Schroyer.

2:16:09 That was when she pulled them all,

2:16:10 but the copyright date is gonna be the teller.

2:16:13 The copyright date is the same as ours,

2:16:16 so they don’t have any updates.

2:16:17 - Yep, so as far as I’m concerned, this one looks good, 2110.

2:16:23 If you guys are okay with that,

2:16:24 we can move on to the next one.

2:16:27 Good, we good?

2:16:28 Okay, Ms. Jenkins, you good?

2:16:31 Okay, next one’s 2111.

2:16:37 This is parent and family involvement in the school program.

2:16:40 It references two of the policies that are pretty in there.

2:16:44 And then if you look at, sorry, pretty in there,

2:16:47 it’s kind of ridiculous.

2:16:48 - Neola has the implementation portion, which we do not.

2:16:52 - So on this one, I noticed when we started,

2:16:55 in Neola’s version, we started getting to the bottom half,

2:16:58 the newer section that ours doesn’t include.

2:17:00 It looks like it’s coming straight out

2:17:01 of the Parents’ Bill of Rights,

2:17:02 and we did implement a policy

2:17:07 that we had all that language in there.

2:17:08 I can’t remember the number,

2:17:10 and I didn’t get a chance to go find it,

2:17:12 but I might, are you with, you remember Paul and me?

2:17:16 - I remember doing something.

2:17:17 I don’t remember off the top of my head.

2:17:19 - Come on, Paul.

2:17:21 - I don’t remember what number it is off the top of my head.

2:17:23 - There’s a couple of little things.

2:17:24 So my suggestion, there’s a couple of little things in here

2:17:27 besides that part.

2:17:28 I don’t know if we need to add all of that

2:17:30 if we already have it somewhere else.

2:17:31 - You mean the implementation portion of this?

2:17:33 - Yeah, so that’s, right.

2:17:34 So the part, yes, the implementation part

2:17:38 is pretty much, if you look at that,

2:17:40 if you’re familiar with the language

2:17:40 from the Parents’ Bill of Rights, it’s practically verbatim.

2:17:43 So, but I think we already have that somewhere else,

2:17:45 and that’s what I can’t remember.

2:17:46 So, but I would like us to,

2:17:49 I think we should take a look at some of it

2:17:50 just because there were a few things.

2:17:55 I’ll just check ‘em all.

2:17:57 - Up towards the top.

2:18:01 If you will notice the bold note

2:18:02 at the very bottom of the new version,

2:18:04 it says that we should select all the options

2:18:07 that have up towards the top

2:18:09 in order to comply with state and federal law and Title I.

2:18:15 - I’m okay with that.

2:18:16 - Yeah, but there is a few things, small things,

2:18:18 but I don’t, they have that extra paragraph

2:18:21 about the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

2:18:26 I think that was just defined to parents.

2:18:27 I think we kind of got that with the family’s definition,

2:18:30 but there’s a couple other little things

2:18:32 I think it might be good just to take a look at this one.

2:18:34 - So, Amit, paragraph two, is that what you’re suggesting?

2:18:37 - Oh, I don’t know, I mean, Amit, we can’t–

2:18:38 - She’s just trying to say take a look at it.

2:18:39 - Do we have to add it in?

2:18:40 I don’t know if we have to add it in.

2:18:42 We can if we’re gonna look at it.

2:18:44 But the other little things are down into the,

2:18:47 like, relationships with, of the effect of communication.

2:18:51 There was a couple of things in there, I think.

2:18:53 - Yep.

2:18:54 I liked a lot of the checkoff versions,

2:18:57 and we can add the implementation, and I think we’re good.

2:19:03 - So we can have–

2:19:04 - There’s no red flags.

2:19:05 - Deb, did I bring this one back?

2:19:07 - To match Newell, to match Neola?

2:19:09 I mean, this one, our policy says families.

2:19:11 This one references parents, so it’s probably–

2:19:15 - More up to date.

2:19:16 - Yeah, there says parents and families.

2:19:18 I said, I don’t know–

2:19:18 - I like the Neola version.

2:19:20 I just like that with all those breaks.

2:19:24 I don’t know what you guys are talking about,

2:19:26 but just have those, just like it’s recommended.

2:19:28 - That’s what we have.

2:19:30 That is the part that is almost identical to what we have.

2:19:33 - And then you have the implementation.

2:19:34 - Which I think we have in another policy.

2:19:36 That’s what I’m not sure.

2:19:37 - Yeah, I think you can have it in two.

2:19:40 It’s not that big of a deal.

2:19:41 I think we’re okay.

2:19:42 Is everybody okay with that?

2:19:43 All right, we’re good?

2:19:45 So direction is to just adopt the Neola one.

2:19:48 Next one up is 2120, school improvement.

2:19:50 Again, taking a look at that, looking at the Neola template.

2:19:56 - I wrote one here.

2:19:57 Again, I looked at this like almost two months ago

2:19:59 at this point, so I’m like,

2:20:00 I’m having to jog my memory, I’m like, okay.

2:20:03 I wrote in here, missing early warning system section.

2:20:06 I don’t know, let me pull up in the Neola and see.

2:20:10 Does it have something about that?

2:20:13 My note may not make any sense to me right now.

2:20:18 - Oh, yeah, there’s a whole section.

2:20:22 So there’s the part about waivers.

2:20:32 We’re in 2120, right?

2:20:34 - Yeah.

2:20:35 - In Neola, there’s a specific list of…

2:20:43 - Yeah, Carl Perkins, general education.

2:20:46 - Right, right, right.

2:20:47 And so it just gives the list rather than just saying,

2:20:52 it’s saying the same thing,

2:20:53 but the Neola version is a little more specific.

2:20:56 And it talks about the superintendent is authorized

2:21:00 to waive those rather than ours,

2:21:04 which says the board is authorized to waive.

2:21:07 - So what she’s saying is that Neola is more specific.

2:21:10 It includes it, are we good to go?

2:21:13 - I think we should update it to match Neola, I mean.

2:21:15 - Yep, I think so too.

2:21:16 I would say that we adopt the Neola version,

2:21:18 which is more updated,

2:21:19 has more specific points on the waivers.

2:21:24 - Do we want any other things in the early warning system

2:21:26 because it’s, all right.

2:21:28 We need to look at this one for a second, sorry.

2:21:30 - No, no, no, no, I’m here.

2:21:36 - Paul, are you familiar?

2:21:37 Maybe this is, I don’t wanna, Jane’s waving her hand.

2:21:41 That early warning system,

2:21:43 is that something you can shed some light on for us?

2:21:46 Yes, is that okay, Ms. Han, is she?

2:21:49 Okay, thank you.

2:21:51 I don’t wanna, I’m not doing any voluntarily today,

2:21:55 but if you can shed some light, that would help.

2:21:57 ‘Cause I’m sure we’re already doing it,

2:21:58 we just may not have it written down in policy.

2:22:03 - So it’s statutorily required, excuse me.

2:22:07 I was on a Bureau of School Improvement meeting this morning

2:22:10 and learned there’s gonna be more changes

2:22:12 to the school improvement process,

2:22:15 where they’re gonna take the federal index

2:22:17 and add that component.

2:22:19 So the state currently is rewriting the template

2:22:24 because of a audit that was found for the state of Florida.

2:22:29 And so they’re trying to,

2:22:31 they did not even have the details.

2:22:32 They’re gonna have them in June

2:22:34 and add that to the school improvement template

2:22:38 that will be coming forth for next year.

2:22:40 - So this might be something that we update,

2:22:42 but let’s wait, let’s push this one out

2:22:45 long enough for everybody to catch up.

2:22:47 - I think we’ll be updating it again,

2:22:51 based on what I learned this morning,

2:22:53 is that they’re gonna be adding the subgroup data

2:23:00 in a more monitoring piece

2:23:02 of the school improvement process.

2:23:05 We monitor our subgroup data,

2:23:08 but it’s not part of the state template

2:23:11 and we follow the state template.

2:23:14 - Okay, so should we table this one

2:23:16 until it comes back in June?

2:23:18 ‘Cause otherwise we’re gonna have to go right back in, right?

2:23:20 - I think the idea would be,

2:23:21 we wanna adopt the NEOLA piece, right?

2:23:24 But in the event that there’s other ones that come on,

2:23:27 if you’ll bring something forward when that happens,

2:23:29 that’s perfect.

2:23:30 - So NEOLA will adjust the template.

2:23:32 - We’re gonna need a bunch of them, yeah.

2:23:33 - If the state changes in June,

2:23:35 NEOLA will probably issue their update August, September-ish.

2:23:39 - Perfect, as long as we’re within compliance, we’re good.

2:23:43 Thank you.

2:23:44 All right, next up, 2125.

2:23:47 - I got notes written on this one.

2:23:48 - School advisory councils

2:23:49 for school improvement and accountability.

2:23:52 All right.

2:23:53 - One of the things that is listed on the first section here

2:23:56 for the school advisory council,

2:23:58 there’s not, it says that we review,

2:24:01 but it doesn’t really, we review membership.

2:24:03 But how often are we reviewing membership?

2:24:05 I don’t know if we should put something in there

2:24:06 to that effect.

2:24:07 - Oh, there’s, and there’s, yep, yep.

2:24:08 - Is it?

2:24:10 - Where are you?

2:24:10 - I’m in the second paragraph.

2:24:12 The board shall review the membership composition

2:24:14 of each advisory council.

2:24:15 But it doesn’t say when or how.

2:24:17 I mean, so it’s, we shall review when.

2:24:19 - So a couple of years ago,

2:24:21 I asked if we could get all of the SIP plans.

2:24:24 They’re the school improvement plans that are passed, right,

2:24:26 that come out of each one of the schools.

2:24:28 And I asked, so what they do is they create a database,

2:24:33 and we log in, and we can click

2:24:34 on each school improvement plan.

2:24:36 And basically, that’s the roadmap that that school feels

2:24:38 is appropriate for student achievement and everything else.

2:24:41 It exists right now.

2:24:42 You can go look at the school improvement plans

2:24:45 for all of them.

2:24:46 Ms. Klein’s coming, or, go ahead.

2:24:48 - Okay.

2:24:49 - The school improvement timeline,

2:24:51 once we attend the June training from the state,

2:24:55 we’ll establish a timeline, and when everything is due,

2:24:58 we send you that timeline,

2:25:00 and then the school improvement plans come to you

2:25:03 for approval, for final approval.

2:25:06 You have approximately two, three weeks to go through

2:25:09 and make any suggestions, bring them back to us,

2:25:13 and then we take them back to the school.

2:25:16 So every school, like currently, as Mr. Susan just said,

2:25:19 currently, you can look at any school improvement plan

2:25:22 in our district.

2:25:23 - Okay.

2:25:24 - But the school bases their goal

2:25:29 based on their student data.

2:25:31 - And is that, that is looked at annually?

2:25:33 Is that, how often is that done?

2:25:35 - Every summer.

2:25:36 - It shows up on a board.

2:25:39 - Board agenda item.

2:25:40 - In September?

2:25:42 - October-ish.

2:25:45 - And that document will list the members of the SAC

2:25:47 for every school, so that at that time, we would be,

2:25:51 that’s when we approve, or review, as this policy says.

2:25:57 Ours is the same, ours is,

2:25:58 Neil hasn’t updated theirs since this one was, by the way.

2:26:01 - And I think, I think if you look at this–

2:26:05 - This one talks about, yeah.

2:26:07 - The advisory council, the SACs, what that is,

2:26:10 is there’s some statutory opportunities for us

2:26:14 to create more of a collaboration between the board

2:26:17 and some of our advisory committees.

2:26:19 If you read the statutes, it talks about how

2:26:21 that’s kind of under our jurisdiction to work with them,

2:26:24 because they’re kind of our wing into the schools.

2:26:27 So I was, once we get that update,

2:26:30 and we get to that process, I may ask all of us

2:26:32 to create like a mini advisory team from the schools

2:26:36 that comes and just advises, you know, talks to us.

2:26:39 And gives us updates as to what’s going on

2:26:41 inside their schools, so.

2:26:43 With that, I think we’re good on this, right?

2:26:45 Is everybody okay?

2:26:46 Does anybody have anything else

2:26:48 that they would like to add to it?

2:26:54 - I mean, are we gonna implement the NEOLA template?

2:26:56 Because again, we don’t have a conflict dispute

2:26:58 resolution process that’s tied to this policy here.

2:27:01 I’m sure we have one maybe somewhere else, but.

2:27:03 - Hang on just a second, because one of the things–

2:27:05 - Ours has additional stuff that’s not in NEOLA.

2:27:08 So it’s gonna be, do you want NEOLA’s template,

2:27:10 or do you wanna add what we don’t have

2:27:12 from NEOLA’s template into what we’ve created?

2:27:16 - Right.

2:27:17 - Yeah, I feel like the resolution piece

2:27:19 is missing from ours.

2:27:24 - So ours speaks about the school recognition funds.

2:27:28 I don’t see that on NEOLA’s.

2:27:30 It speaks about the annual budget.

2:27:31 I don’t see that on.

2:27:35 - So, NEOLA’s.

2:27:44 - I thought we had a policy about SAC,

2:27:46 and I’m not finding it, so.

2:27:48 - We did, it was referenced, there’s some statutory–

2:27:51 - Yeah, about school improvement plans.

2:27:52 I thought we had a policy on school improvement, so.

2:27:56 - Well, this one in here under Duties,

2:27:57 it says school improvement plan process.

2:28:00 - So we may need to add some things, is that?

2:28:02 - I think what you said was correct,

2:28:04 in that anything that’s inside the NEOLA template

2:28:06 that we don’t already have, Paul,

2:28:08 would be something that we could add,

2:28:10 and then that would–

2:28:11 - If that’s the direction, we can just take

2:28:12 what NEOLA has in their template,

2:28:15 and we don’t have in ours, and add it into ours.

2:28:19 - You guys okay with that?

2:28:21 - Yeah, I mean, I can’t see a reason

2:28:22 why we would take either one of these out.

2:28:24 It’s only a couple things that we have additionally

2:28:27 that NEOLA doesn’t.

2:28:29 Does anybody see any reason that we should not have those?

2:28:33 - Good.

2:28:35 - All right, if you follow that one there, Paul.

2:28:37 Next one’s 2131, educational goals.

2:28:42 This is, if you pull up the NEOLA templates,

2:28:46 it might be a little bit different.

2:28:49 - NEOLA has a 2128 that we do not have.

2:28:50 - That’s right, you’re right.

2:28:52 District Advisory Council.

2:28:57 - Because we don’t have a district advisory council.

2:29:00 - Where did that go?

2:29:05 - This is what it speaks to inside the statutes.

2:29:15 - Is this something the district’s ever had?

2:29:16 - No, so it’s pretty cool, if you look at it, right?

2:29:23 - Yeah, I mean, I could see the benefit

2:29:25 of implementing one of these.

2:29:27 What does the board feel like?

2:29:30 - I like it, and if you read some of the statutes,

2:29:34 in regards to the SAC committees and stuff like that,

2:29:36 it calls for some of this kind of involvement.

2:29:41 You guys wanna discuss it?

2:29:45 Do you guys wanna table it,

2:29:47 because it’s a big, big, big one, and we come back to it?

2:29:50 - I mean, I think we can talk about it.

2:29:51 I think we should talk about it now, while we’re here.

2:29:53 - All right, let’s do it.

2:29:54 - I think it’s, I’m not necessarily saying 100% table it,

2:29:59 for that I’m against it, or for it,

2:30:01 but I think implementing something like that

2:30:04 would be an important conversation

2:30:05 after a superintendent is hired, as well.

2:30:09 - I don’t know, it’s pretty simple.

2:30:10 I mean, parents, students, community members,

2:30:12 I mean, I don’t know if a superintendent

2:30:14 would have anything to do with telling us,

2:30:16 no, we don’t want students, so.

2:30:19 - Yeah, the only thing is,

2:30:20 if we were going to give him part of it,

2:30:21 so if we were gonna ask the superintendent

2:30:23 to appoint anybody, but again,

2:30:26 I don’t think that that’s controversial.

2:30:29 - I think we can have a group like this

2:30:31 with or without a policy, right?

2:30:33 I mean, so it’s kind of a decision of doing it,

2:30:34 but one of the challenges that we have

2:30:37 when we have district-wide committees like this

2:30:41 is the distance people have to travel, the involvement,

2:30:45 so I wonder if, rather than one centralized group,

2:30:53 that’s, we can make it however big we want,

2:30:57 because it leaves blanks, this many parents,

2:31:00 this many students.

2:31:03 - You’re talking about going to a regional type thing?

2:31:05 - Or like, yeah, each district has their own kind of,

2:31:07 is that what you’re thinking? - I don’t know.

2:31:08 I mean, ‘cause then we kind of start getting segmented.

2:31:11 I don’t know. - It’s okay.

2:31:12 - I wouldn’t really write it for this conversation today,

2:31:15 just to be honest, so.

2:31:16 I’m not, you know, like Ms. Jenkins, not opposed to,

2:31:19 I just, you talked earlier about how we have a lot to do.

2:31:25 - Well, I think that this is basically our backbone.

2:31:28 If we have, I actually love the idea

2:31:31 of bringing parents, students, community members,

2:31:33 and teachers, and them to talk to us on a regular basis.

2:31:36 I mean, I have my former students that are now having kids,

2:31:42 so it’s kind of interesting, so I just,

2:31:45 I think that this is something that I’d like to do.

2:31:48 I mean, if you guys wanna sit here for a second

2:31:49 and pound through it,

2:31:50 I’d love to put something like this together,

2:31:51 but if you’re having some concerns,

2:31:53 then either way, I’m okay with.

2:31:56 - What would be the, what,

2:31:58 I’m trying to look down to see the purpose,

2:32:00 because what I’m seeing is we’re going,

2:32:04 here’s who’s gonna be on the committee,

2:32:06 here’s how they’re gonna be selected.

2:32:07 - Yep.

2:32:10 - You know, in different ways.

2:32:11 It can come from SACS, or it can come from whatever,

2:32:14 but there’s really no definition.

2:32:16 Oh, it says the purpose of the DAC will be to advise–

2:32:20 - With regard to the development, yep.

2:32:22 - With strategic plan.

2:32:25 - Especially in regard to goals, it looks pretty good.

2:32:29 - Right, to serve as a major communication link

2:32:32 between the district, the schools, and the community,

2:32:35 and so basically to kind of help be that,

2:32:38 we had that, we have that in place

2:32:41 with all the community ambassador groups,

2:32:43 which on a much, much larger scale, actually,

2:32:46 because we had faith-based community ambassador groups,

2:32:52 we had the chambers and the community ambassador group,

2:32:55 we had employee of the year,

2:32:56 all the previous employees of the year,

2:32:57 and the previous teachers of the year,

2:32:59 those were ambassador groups,

2:33:00 and sometimes it would be broken down

2:33:01 like the superintendent would meet with regionally,

2:33:05 everybody from those groups here,

2:33:06 or it would sometimes be,

2:33:07 I’m just gonna pool in all the faith-based today,

2:33:09 whatever, and throw out the idea,

2:33:11 and they were very involved in the making,

2:33:12 the recreation of the strategic plan with this update,

2:33:15 and so that was kind of on a much larger scale,

2:33:20 and something, honestly, whether formal or informal,

2:33:23 needs to continue to happen,

2:33:26 so this is kind of getting more specific,

2:33:29 and saying this is the way we want to get

2:33:31 the community input is through this, and I think…

2:33:35 - That other one didn’t report to us,

2:33:37 or collaborate with us, it was more about

2:33:40 collaborating with Dr. Mullins and staff,

2:33:42 and stuff like that, so I like this.

2:33:44 - We can have it do whatever we want it to,

2:33:46 but I’m saying we had community groups,

2:33:48 large groups, into, I think Tammy can probably comment,

2:33:52 it’s about 300 total in the 225,

2:33:56 and those community, sorry, ministerally speaking,

2:34:01 who were involved in getting their input,

2:34:03 and whether meetings, or digitally,

2:34:07 or whatever, virtual meetings, all different kinds of ways,

2:34:10 so there’s lots of ways to do it,

2:34:12 I don’t know that we have to limit it to this.

2:34:17 - Was there ever a formal document that they said

2:34:19 these are the strategic initiatives that we would like,

2:34:21 you know, I think it was just inputted to staff,

2:34:23 and then staff took what they said and moved through it,

2:34:25 something like that, right?

2:34:26 - No, actually, I think he usually met with them himself,

2:34:29 and would put out, here’s some, you know,

2:34:31 first it was a listening tour, you know,

2:34:33 what are the priorities, what are you thinking

2:34:35 of me working on, taking all the input,

2:34:36 I remember he sat down with each of us as board members,

2:34:38 and went through, actually, over multiple one-on-ones,

2:34:40 because all this was so long,

2:34:41 what do you think about this, where is this on your priority,

2:34:43 this is what I’m hearing from the community,

2:34:45 you know, formulated that, yes, with staff,

2:34:48 with a strategic plan, but, you know,

2:34:49 one of the things that, in the past,

2:34:52 the superintendent, going back to Dr. Blackburn,

2:34:54 and maybe previous, I’m not familiar,

2:34:56 developed a strategic plan, if we’re gonna move into

2:34:58 where the board has more ownership of the strategic plan,

2:35:00 we can do that, but that community input

2:35:05 is still really important, and then when there were going

2:35:07 to be changes or updates, it would, you know,

2:35:09 he would go back out to the same people and say,

2:35:12 here’s where we are, and they give you a report card

2:35:13 of where we are, and what am I hearing from you,

2:35:16 it was just more informal, but definitely going out

2:35:21 with those strategic plan points.

2:35:25 - All right, I like this opportunity,

2:35:26 ‘cause it keeps it to a smaller, tight-knit group,

2:35:29 to give us direction, and if the new superintendent

2:35:33 would like to come in and create what that was before,

2:35:35 I think that would be a good idea, too.

2:35:38 - I don’t necessarily disagree, though,

2:35:39 with Ms. Jenkins on this, maybe saying that we talked

2:35:41 to our new superintendent, and have them involved

2:35:44 in this process, because it may be a collaboration

2:35:46 of what we had, and then this policy together

2:35:48 to kind of come up with what the new superintendent wants.

2:35:51 - Or they might have an even better idea.

2:35:53 - They might even have a better idea, they might.

2:35:56 - We good, all right.

2:35:57 Then we’ll pause it, and let’s go on to the next one,

2:36:00 which is, we’re forgetting to go back to the new one.

2:36:05 All righty, two, one, three, one, educational outcome.

2:36:11 - One one’s ours, which one is that, two?

2:36:17 - Two, one, three, one, B, one.

2:36:20 - Oh, this is one of the ones that is,

2:36:22 unless we see something, this is one of the ones

2:36:24 that has been reviewed within the last five years,

2:36:28 and we would need to come back to it next year

2:36:30 on our continual rotation, but this one was updated

2:36:34 in 2018, within the five years.

2:36:38 - Yeah, well, we can just update it now,

2:36:39 I’m not worried about it. - Just made it, all right.

2:36:42 - So if you guys take a look at V1 and V2,

2:36:46 there’s a little bit of differences here.

2:36:48 - One is there, V2 is.

2:36:51 - One is, like Ms. Jenkins said,

2:36:53 almost exactly like what we have.

2:36:56 And if there’s anything anybody wanted to add, they could.

2:36:59 I have a couple things that I might wanna suggest.

2:37:03 V1 goes, I think, a little more in-depth.

2:37:07 - Yeah, looks like it.

2:37:09 - But it’s up to you guys.

2:37:10 My concern was is that I wanted to be able to put,

2:37:13 I didn’t see anything in here,

2:37:15 capacities for fulfilling, satisfying,

2:37:17 understanding the ability to cope with change,

2:37:19 like all of those things.

2:37:22 How about, like, understanding the workforce

2:37:27 and ensuring the success, like,

2:37:30 understanding what the workforce needs are

2:37:32 and what their opportunities are.

2:37:33 I see the first one, job skills for the workplace

2:37:36 and skills and attitudes to obtain further education.

2:37:40 I don’t know.

2:37:46 - Sorry, give me a minute, I’m going through ‘em.

2:37:57 I’m telling you, if we implement version one,

2:37:59 that scares me a bit, just ‘cause I’m,

2:38:01 I mean, honestly, if you look at some of these questions,

2:38:03 they’re all really great life skills

2:38:05 that our students all should come out of our schools with.

2:38:09 I can speak to the fact that I work with youth

2:38:11 every single week, and there’s a lot of these skills

2:38:13 that our students do not have.

2:38:16 - Push it.

2:38:18 - Yeah.

2:38:18 - These are goals, these are goals.

2:38:20 I’m looking at the statutes that they come from.

2:38:22 Actually, some of these are kinda spelled out.

2:38:24 - Yep.

2:38:30 - I really like version one.

2:38:31 It’s very detailed, but I like version one.

2:38:35 (sighs)

2:38:40 - I like it, too.

2:38:42 - I just think, what would it look like

2:38:44 if every one of our students came out of our schools

2:38:46 with these skills?

2:38:47 - Or at least we set that expectation, right?

2:38:50 So.

2:38:59 Lead your time.

2:39:01 - I know, I’m like, some of these are really good skills,

2:39:03 but I’m like, wow, this would be.

2:39:06 - Anybody else wish to,

2:39:07 there’s a kind of a thing on the floor

2:39:10 saying let’s go with version one.

2:39:11 Are we okay with that?

2:39:12 - Yeah, yeah.

2:39:13 - Does anybody object to version one?

2:39:15 - Anybody wanna tie into it?

2:39:19 Miss Campbell, you okay with it?

2:39:21 - To be quite honest, I didn’t look at the version one.

2:39:24 - You wanna take a second?

2:39:26 - I don’t make decisions like that, Mr. Susan.

2:39:29 I’m happy for us to have to bring it back to us,

2:39:31 and let’s take a look at ‘em, you know,

2:39:34 and I mean, I don’t see anything just looking,

2:39:38 breezing through it that I think is like,

2:39:39 oh no, I don’t want our kids to learn that, you know?

2:39:41 I mean, I’m, yeah. - Okay.

2:39:43 So you’d like to say, go ahead and move forward with V1,

2:39:47 and then if there’s any conversations that you may have

2:39:50 or concerns, you can address them

2:39:52 as it goes through the process, right?

2:39:54 - Sure. - Okay.

2:39:56 Are you okay with that, Miss Jenkins?

2:39:58 - Yep.

2:40:00 - Okay.

2:40:01 All right.

2:40:03 Two, one, three, two.

2:40:10 So these are education process goals.

2:40:13 Again, the NEOLA template has been modified in 2003,

2:40:18 but it goes back, the original one,

2:40:20 looks like we have almost all of them.

2:40:23 The one thing that I was gonna mention is,

2:40:25 is that there’s not a real strict

2:40:29 on educational process goals.

2:40:31 It says instruction, you know,

2:40:33 needs and interest of students and all that stuff,

2:40:35 but there’s nothing talking about the relationship

2:40:37 of parents and students and stuff like that in there.

2:40:40 I didn’t know if anybody wanted to add something,

2:40:43 constructive cooperation with parents and community groups.

2:40:46 I guess that’s okay, but it just doesn’t mean

2:40:48 that it doesn’t tell me like the parent,

2:40:50 like listen to the needs and parents

2:40:51 and accept input on their child

2:40:53 for the success of the student.

2:40:55 But these are kind of overall process goals.

2:40:59 (mumbles)

2:41:03 - I didn’t mention parents and F.

2:41:05 - It does, but it’s not.

2:41:08 - What was your suggestion as far as changing that?

2:41:10 - Just a more specific thing about parents,

2:41:12 but you know, like you’re talking

2:41:13 about educational process goals

2:41:14 and we’re talking about collaborating with parents

2:41:16 and then we have in there constructive cooperation

2:41:18 with parents and community groups.

2:41:20 Just feels like it’s kind of part of something else,

2:41:23 but it can be there.

2:41:24 And we have a whole parents bill of rights

2:41:26 that we can make, you know what I mean?

2:41:27 So if you guys are okay, I’m okay.

2:41:29 - I’m okay with this one.

2:41:31 I didn’t mark this one alone.

2:41:32 - We’re good?

2:41:33 - 2132 is good.

2:41:34 - All right, Paul, just update it.

2:41:36 We’re good to go.

2:41:37 And the next one is 2205.

2:41:40 Instructional planning refers to three statutes.

2:41:49 Our old one referred to three statutes.

2:41:50 The new one only refers to one.

2:41:58 It’s kind of weird.

2:42:05 - They’re not different, right?

2:42:07 - No, it’s exactly the same,

2:42:08 but the old one in our book refers to two other statutes.

2:42:11 - Yeah, but I wrote down on mine.

2:42:13 So it looks like the statute for statute 1001.11,

2:42:17 speaking about the commissioner of education.

2:42:18 So I had a question mark and I wrote that

2:42:20 ‘cause I was like, I don’t know why this statute

2:42:21 is cited here.

2:42:22 - It’s probably why they cleaned it up.

2:42:24 Statute 1008.385 speaks about educational planning

2:42:28 and info system.

2:42:29 So I wrote down notes on those,

2:42:30 which I’m thinking maybe I was looking at the statute

2:42:32 thinking this doesn’t really correlate

2:42:33 to what we’re speaking about,

2:42:35 which might be why they decided to take them out of there.

2:42:37 - So this version is exactly like the one we have.

2:42:43 So if you guys are okay, we can move on.

2:42:45 - Yeah.

2:42:46 - Do we need to, so do we need to–

2:42:48 - Do we need to remove the statutes that are on there?

2:42:51 - Is that a technical change?

2:42:52 - I don’t think I’ve asked that question before.

2:42:55 - Oh, look.

2:42:56 - Paul.

2:42:57 - If it’s not needed, Paul, you can get rid of them.

2:42:58 - Yeah, I mean, is there any harm in citing a statute

2:43:02 that literally pertains nothing to this policy?

2:43:06 - It’s just misleading, so.

2:43:08 - Yeah, let’s get rid of it.

2:43:08 - If I can get rid of it technically, I’ll do it.

2:43:10 If not, I’ll leave it until we get an update.

2:43:12 - NEOLA updates it and says they don’t need it,

2:43:15 so we can get rid of it.

2:43:16 - The third statute is relevant.

2:43:18 It’s just the one about the commissioner.

2:43:20 - Yeah, different, yeah.

2:43:22 - All right, board directs curriculum of this district.

2:43:25 - All right, one, two, two, one, zero.

2:43:29 - Are we good to leave that one as is?

2:43:32 - Yeah, the one we were just on?

2:43:34 Yes, we are on two, two, one, zero curriculum development.

2:43:37 It’s pretty, if you look at this, it’s pretty,

2:43:39 the only difference we would do is

2:43:41 is the superintendent may make progress reports

2:43:43 to the board periodically or annually.

2:43:46 I think we’ve chosen periodically.

2:43:48 And then– - There’s requirements in here

2:43:52 from updated state statute, I believe,

2:43:54 in order to report back to the

2:43:55 Florida Department of Education.

2:43:56 - Sure. - Yeah, I was gonna say,

2:43:58 this one was updated in 2022,

2:44:01 so I’m gonna assume that some of that is–

2:44:04 - For the most part, all of the language

2:44:06 is pretty much the same, except for those updates.

2:44:09 - Yeah, so we need to update this

2:44:11 so that we have the updated requirements.

2:44:13 - So if you– - Is there any reason

2:44:14 that we picked periodically as opposed to annually?

2:44:16 ‘Cause it’s more frequent. - More frequent?

2:44:20 - Progress reports as far as curriculum development?

2:44:25 - If you guys wanna put annually or periodically,

2:44:28 it doesn’t matter to me. - Yeah, it doesn’t mean

2:44:29 it’s less than annually.

2:44:33 - It’s one of those words that’s subject to interpretation,

2:44:35 like ongoing, which you’re like,

2:44:36 well, annually could be ongoing,

2:44:38 or every two years could be ongoing.

2:44:40 - I mean, we’ve been getting them twice a year,

2:44:42 specifically, just not curriculum updates,

2:44:44 but academic achievement updates, and all those things,

2:44:48 at least twice a year, so. - So then do we wanna put

2:44:49 that so that it reflects what we would like to see?

2:44:55 - Yeah. - I mean, if you wanna,

2:44:57 I don’t wanna go back to the rises policy

2:44:59 if we’re only changing that one phrase,

2:45:01 but if we wanna change it at least annually,

2:45:04 you know, or whatever, you know, I mean, it’s, I mean,

2:45:08 I’m not gonna– - What do you guys want?

2:45:10 - Getting a roll over that.

2:45:12 - We gotta change the whole thing anyway,

2:45:13 it’s gotta come before us.

2:45:14 If you wanna add a couple words, it’s okay.

2:45:15 - What are we changing the rest of it?

2:45:17 ‘Cause that’s the only thing I really mean.

2:45:22 It looks like the rest of it all–

2:45:24 - Where was the reporting thing that you–

2:45:26 - It’s on the bottom of the first page,

2:45:28 where, are you talking about that,

2:45:30 where it says, where we select?

2:45:33 If we would like it annually or periodically.

2:45:36 - I’m okay with annually or periodically,

2:45:38 or at least in front of, and then check annually.

2:45:42 It doesn’t matter to me.

2:45:44 - I think we’re focusing on semantics too much.

2:45:46 I think the word periodically leaves it open,

2:45:48 the board’s in charge of the superintendent.

2:45:50 If you don’t like that they’re not reporting something

2:45:51 to you enough, you can tell them to report it.

2:45:54 - Yeah, I’m not seeing, you were talking about a change

2:45:56 earlier about reporting, oh, no, I see it, I see it.

2:46:00 The first one on the second page,

2:46:01 annually a date determined by the FDOE.

2:46:03 District shall submit a board approved K-12 comprehensive

2:46:05 reading plan to the department for this specific use.

2:46:08 Yeah, okay.

2:46:10 Based upon a root cause analysis.

2:46:13 We’re good? - That’s the change.

2:46:14 - Yep, we’re good.

2:46:15 Say we will take the NEOLA update and check annually.

2:46:19 Is that what we wanna do?

2:46:21 - Well, I think we need a consensus, so it doesn’t,

2:46:23 I mean, whatever everyone wants.

2:46:24 - To me periodically means more often

2:46:27 or gives room for more often.

2:46:29 So I think, yeah, I think periodically

2:46:31 is better than annually.

2:46:32 - You okay with that?

2:46:33 - I’m fine with it.

2:46:34 - All right, moving on from 2210,

2:46:36 we’re gonna take the NEOLA update onto 22,

2:46:40 hang on, let me make sure there’s nothing in between there.

2:46:42 Yep, 2215.

2:46:46 - So this one we have updates on.

2:46:48 - Yep.

2:46:56 You guys had a chance to look at the two options?

2:47:04 - There’s only one option.

2:47:07 - No, there’s two different options within the one version.

2:47:11 - Yeah, I’m sorry, I didn’t need to clarify.

2:47:13 Yep.

2:47:17 - This policy is actually going to be revised

2:47:18 with new legislation that’s passing.

2:47:20 - It certainly is, yeah.

2:47:23 - Do you wanna pause on this until we get it?

2:47:25 ‘Cause we’re just gonna have to redo it anyway.

2:47:26 - You’re gonna have to redo it.

2:47:28 Tons of this is gonna end up being changed

2:47:29 after this session.

2:47:30 - Paul, are you okay with that?

2:47:32 Take this one, pause it, and bring it back.

2:47:34 All right, great point, guys.

2:47:36 Moving through these.

2:47:38 All right, so our next is 2216.

2:47:45 Gifted education, looks like we made our own.

2:47:47 And Neola has nothing, this is our first.

2:47:50 - And we did extensive work. - And I looked through it.

2:47:52 And I looked at it, and I said, “This is great.”

2:47:55 - This might be the longest policy we have.

2:47:58 - And we created our own. - No, it’s not.

2:47:59 The financial policy that Cindy brought us

2:48:01 a couple years ago is the longest policy that we have.

2:48:04 I haven’t actually looked, but I remember,

2:48:05 you remember, Cindy, when we did that?

2:48:07 - It’s very long.

2:48:08 It’s even longer than charter school policy.

2:48:10 - We’ll get there, yeah.

2:48:12 So are we okay? - But it’s in like the 8,000.

2:48:13 - I looked through it, are you okay with that?

2:48:15 - Yeah, no, I don’t have this one marked up at all.

2:48:16 - So I’ll just give you, I mean,

2:48:18 one of the things that we did in that was to screen one,

2:48:22 we’re screening all kids in second grade,

2:48:24 so you kind of remove that.

2:48:26 Either the parent had to say, “I think my kid’s gifted,”

2:48:28 or the teacher had to say, “We’re doing that initial

2:48:30 “screening for everybody in the second grade,”

2:48:32 and just trying to open that up,

2:48:34 make it a little more equitable.

2:48:35 But we did a lot of work on that.

2:48:38 I’m not saying I’m not willing to do a lot of work again,

2:48:40 but I think we have a good one there.

2:48:43 - Yeah.

2:48:45 - All right, we’re good.

2:48:46 All right, moving on, 2220, adoption of courses of study.

2:48:54 - They haven’t changed anything since 2002.

2:48:58 - Is there anything in here regarding financial literacy

2:49:00 and the implementation of that?

2:49:02 Let me look, sorry.

2:49:05 - I don’t know that it gets specific to

2:49:09 the actual courses of study.

2:49:11 Right, right.

2:49:17 - Yeah, it just talks about what’s required within them

2:49:19 and for them to be presented.

2:49:20 - Right, right, if we’re going to do something new,

2:49:23 it has to have all these things.

2:49:25 - Okay.

2:49:26 - We’re okay?

2:49:27 Yeah, ‘cause it’s exactly the same, right?

2:49:29 - Yep. - Okay.

2:49:30 Paul, show it, updated 2230 on this one.

2:49:35 Is there something on the old one?

2:49:37 Nope, there we go, course guides.

2:49:39 All right, 2230 course guides.

2:49:43 Seems to be in line with almost identical

2:49:45 to what it was.

2:49:48 - I know, but like, I know I’m trying to like–

2:49:51 - It adds H.

2:49:52 - So.

2:49:53 - Usually it’s spread out.

2:49:55 - Yeah, so when you look at the bottom section of it,

2:49:58 we don’t have anything selected there for the,

2:50:01 all right, so it says the superintendent

2:50:02 shall be responsible for the preparation

2:50:04 of course guides and may establish administrative procedures

2:50:07 related to the preparation, but then it looks like

2:50:09 we should have selected one of those two options, right?

2:50:14 - Or both.

2:50:16 - I don’t think it’s a have to.

2:50:17 They would have told us if we had to.

2:50:19 - Where are you?

2:50:20 - At the bottom.

2:50:21 - At the bottom where there’s a check mark.

2:50:23 - Where are you?

2:50:24 - So we have to be responsible for the preparation

2:50:25 of course guides of the new amendment.

2:50:27 - Shall be submitted to the board for approval.

2:50:28 I blanked that. - 22, we’re still there.

2:50:30 - Before they’re implemented. - I thought we left that.

2:50:32 - Before they’re implemented, yeah.

2:50:33 - I’m sorry, I thought we moved on.

2:50:35 - I think both of, I can’t see a disadvantage

2:50:37 to having all of those in the policy.

2:50:40 - I agree.

2:50:41 - Have we done that before?

2:50:42 Course guides submit to the board for approval?

2:50:51 No?

2:50:53 - They’re all online.

2:50:54 - Yeah?

2:50:55 - They’re all online.

2:50:57 - Yeah, that’s why it’s not checked.

2:51:03 - I think it should be audited to the policy

2:51:04 for the board to review it.

2:51:06 - Gene?

2:51:07 - Yep.

2:51:08 - Okay, how about you guys?

2:51:10 Any objections to adding it?

2:51:13 Red flags?

2:51:17 - Does that mean we need to go back and approve

2:51:19 all of the course guides that we have?

2:51:22 - No, it says new.

2:51:23 - It says new.

2:51:24 - It says all new course guides.

2:51:25 And revisions of existing, so yeah.

2:51:30 If they’re all online, I guess we don’t need

2:51:31 to keep them in a file in the office.

2:51:33 - Yeah, that’s really outdated.

2:51:35 - It’s definitely 2002.

2:51:36 - That’s very outdated.

2:51:37 - Oh, come on.

2:51:38 - I mean, I’m a paper girl.

2:51:39 I like to have things that I can flip through

2:51:41 and write on and make notes.

2:51:42 - People can go online and print them out.

2:51:44 - Yeah.

2:51:46 - But what if the internet fails?

2:51:47 - Oh, don’t, don’t, don’t.

2:51:49 - All right, so check the first one in its sub box

2:51:53 before they’re implemented.

2:51:54 Get rid of the copies on all current course guides.

2:51:56 We’re good to go?

2:51:57 - Hold on, I’m just, I don’t know about

2:51:59 the before they’re implemented thing,

2:52:01 ‘cause that is gonna pose a barrier very likely

2:52:03 in terms of timing of meetings and things

2:52:05 to that have to get rolling and the last minute changes

2:52:07 that often our state makes as they walk to the podium.

2:52:10 I think they’re gonna say all of that as well.

2:52:15 - Well, sort of.

2:52:18 Yeah, all the curriculum guides are online.

2:52:20 We review them every single summer

2:52:22 and make adaptive changes based on changes

2:52:25 of state statute, course code guides, things like that.

2:52:28 Super transparent, more than happy to put them

2:52:31 in front of the board.

2:52:32 Timing in terms of before implemented

2:52:36 might be a little difficult.

2:52:38 They basically get redone every summer

2:52:41 and then rolled out, redone minor changes,

2:52:44 but it would fall under that language.

2:52:47 We’d certainly put them on a board agenda.

2:52:49 It’s not a problem, but it might be difficult to say

2:52:52 before they’re used because they’re a resource

2:52:55 for our teachers.

2:52:57 - So would there be anything that would stop you

2:52:59 from just, I guess, putting them in front of the board

2:53:01 during the summer meeting for us to review them

2:53:03 and then if there were any issues with them?

2:53:05 I don’t suspect there would be, but.

2:53:08 - We also get teacher input to what they want changed.

2:53:12 For example, the ELA, the pacing curriculum guides,

2:53:17 those are all going to be some revisions this summer again.

2:53:21 So the timing is the issue because we will finish them

2:53:26 the last, middle of July for August.

2:53:31 But absolutely, we’ll bring them to you.

2:53:35 - On your consent, are we imagining just the process?

2:53:38 - I think putting the before implementation piece

2:53:42 puts a really big barrier and burden on our staff

2:53:45 and it takes the fluidity out of a very fluid,

2:53:47 active document that should naturally have revisions

2:53:50 when things aren’t going well or do need to be changed

2:53:52 ‘cause they’re mandated.

2:53:55 But it doesn’t stop it from coming before us

2:53:57 whenever most likely available right after.

2:54:01 I think that’s a burden that we’re gonna put on our staff

2:54:03 for no reason.

2:54:04 - And I guess the only reason that I have pause

2:54:06 about this again is because of us being responsible

2:54:09 for all curriculum that, you know, statutorily we are,

2:54:11 so I would like to review it and if there is an issue.

2:54:16 All right, thank you.

2:54:17 - Right, they, we’ll get them to you.

2:54:19 - You can even just send me an email and.

2:54:21 - Well, I think.

2:54:22 - We don’t mind at all.

2:54:23 - We actually like that it’s public and clear.

2:54:26 - Yeah.

2:54:27 - We direct a lot of families to the site.

2:54:28 It’s not a problem at all.

2:54:29 - Ms. Hand has this meeting twice a week

2:54:31 for the rest of the year, so we’ll be fine.

2:54:33 Plenty of opportunities to bring it forward.

2:54:34 - For the rest of the year.

2:54:36 Twice a week.

2:54:37 Wait, wait, wait a minute.

2:54:38 I’m about to throw a mark at you.

2:54:41 So maybe it would be helpful,

2:54:43 I think it would be able to me,

2:54:44 when we’re talking about these course guides,

2:54:46 are we talking about what you shared, Ms. Klein,

2:54:51 about the, like the pacing guide?

2:54:53 Are we talking about a pacing guide?

2:54:54 Are we talking about, we’re going to have a new course of,

2:55:00 I mean, it doesn’t say course of study,

2:55:01 but I mean, well, it does say course of study.

2:55:04 But are we, are we talking,

2:55:05 like if we’re gonna have a new class offered

2:55:07 that you’re gonna send, I don’t know that I,

2:55:09 I don’t know that the board really wants to see

2:55:11 you adjusted the pacing guide because it was going too fast.

2:55:14 I don’t think we need to approve that.

2:55:18 Or we had some events, so we need to slow it down.

2:55:23 I don’t know that that’s what this policy is asking.

2:55:25 So, I mean, but, so I think we need to get down to

2:55:29 what is the, that the board wants to see

2:55:32 before it gets started, and what way do we wanna see it?

2:55:35 Do we want it have to come before a meeting

2:55:36 and we’re going to approve it, or do we’re just saying,

2:55:38 are we just saying make us aware?

2:55:40 - I would say it says board for approval,

2:55:42 and then when you’re looking at course guides,

2:55:45 what do you, so what do you,

2:55:46 what does that envision in your mind?

2:55:48 I know it’s not the pacing guide.

2:55:49 - So they’re a little different.

2:55:49 So if you went to our social studies webpage,

2:55:52 you would see a link for each of the courses.

2:55:54 So civics, US history, economics,

2:55:58 you would see some curriculum resources,

2:56:00 some guides in pacing, some ancillary supports,

2:56:04 to ways to address diverse learners,

2:56:06 like our students with disabilities,

2:56:08 how to modify the curriculum.

2:56:10 Just see all kinds of things in a math.

2:56:12 You’re gonna see a lot more pacing

2:56:14 just because that’s inherently math.

2:56:16 In ELA, you’re gonna see our specialists have pulled

2:56:20 and add depth to what’s in the curriculum.

2:56:24 So they’re all a little different depending on the course.

2:56:29 Super easy for us to link to all of that,

2:56:31 if that is sufficient in a board agenda,

2:56:35 and we can put a little new, or updated,

2:56:38 or not updated next to it, or something like that.

2:56:42 Really like our public viewing them,

2:56:43 giving feedback on them, so it’s not a problem at all.

2:56:47 It just, the problem will be the language

2:56:49 on the prior to implementation,

2:56:53 given it’s mostly just supplemental content,

2:56:57 or sequenced content.

2:57:00 Honestly, it’s a little easier to put ‘em all.

2:57:02 - Okay, so– - We can get to yes anywhere.

2:57:05 My one pause would be, it may not perfectly be

2:57:08 before school starts, from when they finish,

2:57:10 to when we can give you guys an update.

2:57:13 But I don’t see why by not early August.

2:57:15 - And the other layer of that is,

2:57:17 is that they’re not gonna teach the entire course

2:57:19 on the first day, so you see what I mean?

2:57:21 So like, whereas we’re saying, before you start,

2:57:24 well if, you know the first week and a half

2:57:25 is just basically finding the bathroom,

2:57:27 and telling ‘em how to write their names

2:57:29 at the top of the paper half the time, right?

2:57:30 So I think we’re in a good place, if we can get to there.

2:57:33 - Not my class, maybe your class, not my class.

2:57:35 - Ms. Campbell, like seriously,

2:57:38 let’s just talk about the first week of school.

2:57:39 - There are guides for teachers,

2:57:41 and some are used much more closely,

2:57:43 particularly our new teachers, others less.

2:57:46 Our veteran teachers are less dependent on those guides.

2:57:49 We ask them to review them for mandatory content.

2:57:52 There’s a lot of mandatory content in our state, so.

2:57:55 - So, I guess, I mean, I’m okay with removing

2:57:58 the before they are implemented.

2:57:59 If they go on the agenda, then at least,

2:58:01 honestly, that will help with our public engagement,

2:58:04 to seeing these changes and revisions.

2:58:05 So I think that that’s a win-win all the way around.

2:58:07 - Yeah, we agree.

2:58:08 - What do you guys think?

2:58:09 - Sounds good to me.

2:58:10 - Yeah, to not put the before–

2:58:12 - Before they’re implemented,

2:58:13 but for us to be able to review it.

2:58:15 ‘Cause I think it’s contradictory, too,

2:58:16 by putting the implemented, because ultimately,

2:58:18 this is the role and responsibility of the superintendent.

2:58:21 Adding the first check mark

2:58:23 is just putting another eye on it.

2:58:26 But if we put the implemented,

2:58:27 I think it’s taking the responsibility away

2:58:29 from the superintendent.

2:58:31 - Well, I think it’s doing us.

2:58:34 - Okay, moving on.

2:58:35 - Paul, do you have direction?

2:58:36 - Yep. - All right.

2:58:38 Moving on, 22. - Oh, boy.

2:58:41 - Hang on a second, I gotta make sure, 2240.

2:58:44 - Controversial issues. - Controversial issues, woo!

2:58:47 - Yes, yes. - All right, here we go.

2:58:49 - It’s actually not a very controversial policy.

2:58:51 - I know, it’s for kids. - I know, it’s really not.

2:58:53 - It’s pretty benign. - I know.

2:58:56 - Actually, so every year,

2:58:58 I teach at the Teacher Leadership Academy.

2:59:02 Linda Buffum has invited me to do that.

2:59:04 I just did it last week,

2:59:05 and this is the policy I used to give them as an example.

2:59:10 But it’s pretty tame.

2:59:13 - And Neola hasn’t updated theirs since 2002.

2:59:19 - I think this is also gonna be one

2:59:20 that’s going to change with,

2:59:23 my computer’s logging me out for some reason, sorry,

2:59:26 legislation to some degree, this.

2:59:31 - Ours is actually, am I on the right one?

2:59:33 Ours is longer.

2:59:35 - It’s just broken up.

2:59:37 - Is it just the formatting?

2:59:38 - It’s just making it very clear and separate

2:59:41 that parents can have concerns

2:59:43 and communicate that with staff.

2:59:45 - Right. - Yep.

2:59:45 - Yeah. - So are we okay

2:59:46 with just telling Paul, hey, listen,

2:59:48 anything that’s not inside there from the first Neola,

2:59:51 or from the Neola update, but we keep our policy here?

2:59:55 - Yeah, I don’t, our policy is actually stronger

2:59:58 than the Neola’s policy, so. - Yep.

2:59:59 If that’s okay, and then in the event

3:00:01 that something happens that updates it,

3:00:02 it’ll come forward to us with other ones.

3:00:04 - Yeah. - Are we good with that, Paul?

3:00:05 - This one’s also been done in the last five years.

3:00:08 - Yep.

3:00:09 - Ms. Campbell, you’re excited to find those ones

3:00:11 that have been– - I was just gonna say,

3:00:12 like, it’s good to do ‘em now, though,

3:00:16 so we don’t have to go through this.

3:00:17 - I counted, there’s 23, I’m like, there’s 23.

3:00:20 - Okay. - Okay, so.

3:00:22 - All right, so we’re good. - We do not have

3:00:24 a 2250. - 2250 innovative program.

3:00:27 You mean to tell me we don’t have it?

3:00:28 - We do not.

3:00:30 - We have many– - We have many

3:00:31 innovative programs. - Unless it’s somewhere else.

3:00:33 - Right, I truly believe we don’t need this

3:00:36 when I was looking at it.

3:00:38 You know, it basically puts handcuffs on any innovative

3:00:42 program, it has to put all of these things together,

3:00:44 in-service requirements, assessment, it’s just,

3:00:47 it’s not needed.

3:00:49 We okay with that? - Yep.

3:00:50 - Yep. - All right, moving on, 2260.

3:00:55 - I think our policy looks significantly different

3:00:57 than Neil was, I wrote, so I need to look at.

3:01:02 This is the trouble with looking at these two months ago,

3:01:05 ‘cause now I’m like, I don’t remember.

3:01:07 - All right, we just updated this one last year.

3:01:16 - No H, trees, Tammy saved by printing them

3:01:19 in size four font. (laughing)

3:01:22 - It was just so this didn’t look quite so bad

3:01:23 when you’re like, oh, all right.

3:01:27 So.

3:01:37 (paper rustling)

3:01:42 - I think this is one that we can do,

3:01:44 is add anything that Neil suggests,

3:01:47 and keep any of the stuff that we have,

3:01:50 if you guys are feeling comfortable with that.

3:01:52 - There’s lots of options.

3:01:54 - Yeah, I mean, like the, what was this, the–

3:01:56 - So our policy, like, kind of picks up towards the–

3:01:59 - Compliance officers.

3:02:01 - Middle of page two or something, it’s like,

3:02:05 it’s like we missed the whole first page.

3:02:07 (laughing)

3:02:12 - All right, any more, the board does not, all right, such.

3:02:20 So.

3:02:25 - Again, this is something that clearly has been updated

3:02:29 by the legislation changing last session.

3:02:35 (paper rustling)

3:02:38 - I don’t see the oppressive comment.

3:02:41 (mumbling)

3:02:43 - Oppressive, hold on, give me a second.

3:02:47 (mumbling)

3:02:50 - Ours.

3:02:52 - Right.

3:02:53 - Which I think is new, this is what I’m getting at.

3:02:55 - Gosh.

3:02:56 - Yeah, it looks like we took the first paragraph

3:02:58 and then we opted for the second option on this one.

3:03:06 - Yep.

3:03:13 - Any suggestions?

3:03:23 - Give me a minute, sorry, this one’s a long one,

3:03:25 this is an 11 pager.

3:03:26 We found a longer policy.

3:03:29 All right.

3:03:35 (mumbling)

3:03:47 - Paul, do you wanna make any suggestions

3:03:48 to us on that Neola policy?

3:03:52 - I can go through and scan for anything that’s been added

3:03:55 since we did and added into ours that we don’t have.

3:04:00 - Is that okay with you guys?

3:04:02 - Yeah.

3:04:03 - When I was looking through it pretty much just follows.

3:04:09 Are you okay with that Ms. Campbell?

3:04:11 Bring it back to us.

3:04:14 - Sure.

3:04:15 - Okay, Mr. Trent, we’re good?

3:04:16 - Yeah, I’m good with that.

3:04:17 - Okay, moving on.

3:04:23 Let’s see what the next one is.

3:04:26 Make sure I don’t miss one here, 2260-001.

3:04:30 - All right, this is…

3:04:34 All right, so there seems to be this ADA thing.

3:04:37 - Well, this looks like a…

3:04:42 Ours has appeal process procedures, this looks like.

3:04:46 - What are you looking at?

3:04:47 - We’re at 2260.01, our policy is different than theirs.

3:04:54 - Oh, yeah, ours is not about 504s.

3:05:00 - Is that you?

3:05:01 - Disabilities, this is a part of a whole package

3:05:05 that we did together last year on anti-harassment

3:05:08 and non-discrimination, we did a whole group of policies

3:05:12 kind of all at the same time.

3:05:15 - So do we need to, I mean, it looks like we obviously need

3:05:22 to add this 2260.01 to match what theirs is

3:05:27 and maybe renumber ours, I’m trying to see

3:05:31 if this is maybe in the future.

3:05:33 - So I don’t see–

3:05:36 - Is this the same thing as the other one?

3:05:37 - No.

3:05:38 - So my gut feeling is 2260.01 from NEOLA is law.

3:05:45 - Is wrong?

3:05:46 - No, it’s law, I mean, it’s not–

3:05:47 - Yeah, yeah, no, it looks very much like law.

3:05:49 - Yeah.

3:05:50 - But ours looks a lot, this looks a lot like law too,

3:05:52 so the anti-harassment and non-discrimination

3:05:55 appeal procedures.

3:05:57 - Yeah, I’m sure it is, but the numbers

3:06:00 for sure need to be fixed.

3:06:02 - Okay, so should we add in NEOLA’s 2260.01

3:06:07 and then change the number of ours to 0.02?

3:06:13 - Well, that NEOLA has a 0.02 as well and a 0.03.

3:06:17 - Say what?

3:06:17 - No, that’s 61, you’re looking, I’m saying 2260.02.

3:06:22 - Yeah, we can get them to renumber ours to be 0.02.

3:06:25 - Okay, and then add in their 2260.01?

3:06:32 ‘Cause we do not have, I mean, there’s actually parts

3:06:36 of this that are in our 2260.01.

3:06:40 - We’ll go with your direction, you got the gap over here.

3:06:42 I’m gonna go use the direction real quick.

3:06:43 - Okay.

3:06:44 - Just move us to the next one.

3:06:46 - Uh-huh.

3:06:53 - What’s the thoughts of the board?

3:06:54 - So the compliance officers, is this just 504s?

3:07:01 - This is all federal stuff, so we do it.

3:07:04 - I was trying to see if we had one somewhere else.

3:07:06 - Yeah, we have a compliance officer.

3:07:09 - Right, okay.

3:07:12 Specifically for 504s?

3:07:14 - Yeah, and it talks about you’re having to name them

3:07:17 and everything and we do that, so.

3:07:19 - Do we have a separate male one and a female one?

3:07:21 I saw that somewhere in there.

3:07:23 I’m not sure what the point of that is.

3:07:25 - Well, depending on the event that took place

3:07:30 and you may want, you know.

3:07:34 - Yeah, yeah.

3:07:38 So we need to look at this.

3:07:41 - Yeah.

3:07:44 - I am not seeing anything just in a cursory glance

3:07:48 that we have, we don’t have any policies labeled 504.

3:07:53 We have lots of policies that talk about 504s.

3:07:55 - Adopt their 2260.01 and then rename ours.

3:07:59 - I think we’re probably gonna run into ours somewhere else.

3:08:01 Oh, because ours, this is just the appeal procedures.

3:08:06 - Yeah, ours is the appeal procedures.

3:08:07 - For the policy report, yeah.

3:08:08 - Yes.

3:08:10 So what do you guys think?

3:08:12 - Yeah, I’m fine with that.

3:08:15 - Ms. Jenkins?

3:08:17 - Yeah, that’s fine, I just, I feel like

3:08:20 we have it somewhere, but.

3:08:25 - Mr. Trent?

3:08:27 - Okay.

3:08:28 - Yeah, we’re good.

3:08:29 - Does our, is there so much of a separate process, Paul,

3:08:34 that what we have in 2260 will not cover?

3:08:41 Because this is still about discrimination.

3:08:43 - Right, I haven’t done a line item.

3:08:45 - There might be things in as required by federal law.

3:08:48 - Yeah, I mean, this does, ‘cause this speaks specifically

3:08:50 to somebody with a disability.

3:08:51 Look at paragraph number two of this 2260.01.

3:08:55 - There’s probably a lot of overlap in how we handle it.

3:08:58 - Okay.

3:09:00 Okay, so moving on.

3:09:04 - Where are we at?

3:09:05 - Are we good?

3:09:06 - 2261.

3:09:07 - I think we got three of that.

3:09:08 We’re gonna rename this one, we’re at 2261.

3:09:11 - All right, 2261, if you go to the top of it,

3:09:15 title one services.

3:09:21 When I looked at it, I didn’t see anything

3:09:22 that was concerning.

3:09:24 It seems like we had pretty much all of the options there.

3:09:28 If everybody’s okay with it, I didn’t see,

3:09:30 the only thing I didn’t see on there was the F portion,

3:09:34 which is in ours, simultaneous services.

3:09:39 If you guys are okay with Paul updating it to include

3:09:41 anything that may not be in there that we currently have,

3:09:45 ‘cause if you look down at F.

3:09:47 - Yeah.

3:09:48 - Okay.

3:09:49 So if you guys are okay with that, we can move on.

3:09:53 - Yeah.

3:09:54 - Were you saying F?

3:09:54 - On our policy, we have simultaneous services.

3:09:59 - That’s okay?

3:09:59 - Yeah, and there’s actually, there’s something in under,

3:10:03 I don’t know, it’s absolutely necessary,

3:10:05 but under participation that there’s,

3:10:08 they’ve got a couple extra things in there.

3:10:10 - Okay.

3:10:13 - So update this one to match Neola’s then,

3:10:14 and still keep our simultaneous services?

3:10:17 - Or at least have staff take a look at it, yeah.

3:10:19 - Okay.

3:10:21 Good.

3:10:22 All right, 226101, parent participation.

3:10:26 - And just, because we had this conversation

3:10:28 where there were only a few staff members in the room,

3:10:30 even though they were probably watching from their offices.

3:10:33 Just to clarify, ‘cause it looks like we’re dumping

3:10:35 a whole bunch of policies.

3:10:37 I believe the direction of the board is as we can get to it.

3:10:41 If there’s some that we can, like we did with the remote work

3:10:45 and say, we need to do this, we need to do this now,

3:10:47 but everything else is as, ‘cause we,

3:10:49 it’s not like you guys aren’t working on anything else.

3:10:51 - Yeah.

3:10:54 - All right, so parent participation

3:10:55 and Title I programs is what is–

3:10:57 - This is a good, if you guys read it, it’s really good.

3:11:00 - Yeah.

3:11:01 - It talks about the development of all those other things.

3:11:03 I wanted to say that there’s been some push

3:11:07 to possibly use, like we can get more parent participation

3:11:11 with some of these, if we were to try to get some sort

3:11:12 of like a mobile fingerprinting to the actual locations,

3:11:16 you know what I mean?

3:11:17 - Oh yeah, that would be tremendous.

3:11:18 - We have one, we have two actually.

3:11:21 - The problem we have is that our staff

3:11:24 getting out there and doing it, you know what I mean?

3:11:26 - Right, because it, only certain people can do it.

3:11:27 - Yeah, so asking.

3:11:28 - But we do have, ‘cause I asked for them.

3:11:30 We have, but then COVID hit,

3:11:32 they like, we literally–

3:11:33 - So how do you get those mobile fingerprinting services

3:11:35 to your school, ‘cause I would love to know, acquiring mine,

3:11:37 would love to know.

3:11:38 - This hand, we’ve, I’ve sent her an email

3:11:40 and they’re looking into it.

3:11:41 - We’re looking at it.

3:11:42 - Okay.

3:11:43 - The problem we don’t–

3:11:44 - To be determined, okay.

3:11:44 - The problem we had before is district security

3:11:46 was having to do it and then it was, they were on a,

3:11:49 you know, didn’t have the availability

3:11:50 of many people, then we had COVID.

3:11:52 So I think now they’re collaboratively looking

3:11:54 at how to do that.

3:11:55 - Yep, we’ll take a look.

3:11:56 - Thank you.

3:11:57 - Or even if we were able to just set up one

3:11:58 in each of our district, you know, periodically,

3:12:00 that would probably be tremendous as helping

3:12:02 some of our volunteers.

3:12:03 - We’ll do what we can, thank you.

3:12:05 - I just have to highlight while we have the opportunity

3:12:07 is, you know, one of the ladies who works in the office

3:12:09 who does that is a volunteer for them.

3:12:11 She’s an amazing volunteer, but–

3:12:14 - In our district security office?

3:12:15 - Mm-hmm.

3:12:17 - The thing is, though, is that there wasn’t enough,

3:12:19 like, there was a bandwidth concern,

3:12:22 so I think Ms. Hand is gonna put together

3:12:23 an effective opportunity for it.

3:12:25 So if you guys are okay, the parent participation

3:12:27 in Title I programs is really cool.

3:12:29 I feel okay that if we can pass the updated version

3:12:34 that we have from NEOLA, it feels pretty good.

3:12:38 - Ours is the same.

3:12:38 - Yeah, it’s the same.

3:12:39 - It’s identical.

3:12:40 - Ours is the same.

3:12:41 - Right, or whatever.

3:12:42 I mean, it’s a little different.

3:12:43 - Our current O-1 and point O-2 are identical.

3:12:45 - Yeah, so if we’re okay with any changes

3:12:48 that might be there, if it’s not identical,

3:12:49 or just moving forward, we’re good?

3:12:52 - Yeah.

3:12:52 - All right.

3:12:56 All right, next one is 2261.02.

3:13:00 According to Ms. Jenkins, they are identical,

3:13:02 so if everybody’s okay.

3:13:03 - And we updated it in 2018, yep.

3:13:06 - We’re good to go?

3:13:07 - Mm-hmm.

3:13:08 - All righty, moving on to 2261.0.

3:13:12 Let me make sure we don’t have, yep,

3:13:14 03, annual report requirements.

3:13:18 - I wrote something on here, and I don’t know why

3:13:19 I wrote it, ‘cause ours was more extensive.

3:13:22 - Yeah.

3:13:23 - Yeah, I,

3:13:26 yeah.

3:13:34 I like ours.

3:13:37 - Yep.

3:13:41 I don’t know why I wrote that.

3:13:42 - I would say in this regard, if we can ask Paul

3:13:45 to add anything that NEOLA has added

3:13:48 into the original policy we have,

3:13:50 but we have more that we require for ours

3:13:53 than is required on that.

3:13:56 (muffled speaking)

3:14:02 - Yeah.

3:14:03 - Okay.

3:14:04 - Mm-hmm.

3:14:05 - We’re gay with that?

3:14:06 All right, Paul, Paul, you good?

3:14:08 - Yep.

3:14:09 - All right, all righty, moving on.

3:14:12 I think the next one is 2262.

3:14:14 - We don’t have latchkey programs?

3:14:16 - Well.

3:14:17 - No, we don’t call it that, so that’s why

3:14:19 we have a version number two, which is, again, identical.

3:14:22 - We call this school-aged childcare, is that what you mean,

3:14:25 or what is the version?

3:14:27 - Yeah, I think latchkey’s kind of a,

3:14:29 when I was a child.

3:14:29 - Outdated, yeah.

3:14:31 - It’s what I was growing up.

3:14:32 - A child of the ’80s, or the ’90s in some of our kids.

3:14:36 - I was always in the Everglades, that’s where I grew up.

3:14:39 All right, so if you look at 2262 version two,

3:14:43 looks like.

3:14:45 - It’s the same.

3:14:45 - Yep.

3:14:46 - Yeah.

3:14:48 Yep.

3:14:50 So we’re just gonna mark that one reviewed.

3:14:52 - Yep.

3:14:55 Next up, 2266.

3:15:00 Non-discrimination on the basis of sex

3:15:02 and education programs and activity.

3:15:03 - This is another one that’s gonna be updated

3:15:05 with this legislative session, so.

3:15:07 - Do you wanna pause on this one until it gets updated?

3:15:10 - I would say pause on this one, yeah.

3:15:12 - Well, I mean, here’s the thing is we,

3:15:14 they’ll send us an update if it needs to be, right?

3:15:18 - Yeah, this was updated last year as well.

3:15:20 - Yeah, I feel confident that we just wait

3:15:22 until they update it, and then we get it back.

3:15:24 - And the Title IX regs are also being updated right now,

3:15:27 so they’re gonna change again with the federal law.

3:15:30 - Needs to be.

3:15:32 Okay.

3:15:33 Then we’re good on that one, 2270 is the next one,

3:15:36 according to our booklet, religion in the curriculum.

3:15:41 There’s some things inside the statute

3:15:43 that since this was here have been updated.

3:15:48 So these are statutory law, it’s not like I’m trying

3:15:51 to add these things to it, but I really like ‘em.

3:15:54 Talks about the district board shall install,

3:15:58 and this was what was really cool,

3:16:00 the district school board may install the public schools

3:16:02 in the district a secular program of education,

3:16:04 including but not limited to an objective study

3:16:07 of the Bible and of religion.

3:16:09 That’s not in here, also the district school board

3:16:11 may provide that a brief period not to exceed two minutes

3:16:13 for the purpose of silent prayer or mediation be set aside

3:16:16 at the start of each school day and each week.

3:16:19 - That’s actually required by state statute that passed.

3:16:22 - Yep.

3:16:24 - Two minutes, one minute.

3:16:26 I can’t see from that far away.

3:16:28 - Two minutes.

3:16:29 - One minute of silence.

3:16:32 - Not to exceed two minutes.

3:16:33 It’s literally statute.

3:16:35 I’m reading it from the statute.

3:16:36 And then what was interesting was is I pulled up

3:16:39 another one that talks from the code line.

3:16:42 It had a couple of other additions to it

3:16:45 that were interesting, but I think in this regard,

3:16:48 religious in the curriculum, if we’re gonna update it,

3:16:51 to include those things that I just spoke to

3:16:54 and I think that’s fair.

3:16:59 Anybody else have anything that they wanna add to it?

3:17:02 - No, I’m in favor of updating this policy, honestly.

3:17:04 So I, yeah, so it would have to be our own updates

3:17:09 because Neil–

3:17:11 - Yeah, it’s just adding what is inside the statute

3:17:14 to the actual policy.

3:17:16 - I’m gonna need you to provide that and read that again.

3:17:18 - Well, if you’ll go look at 21003.45,

3:17:24 you’ll see what I just read exact.

3:17:26 And all I’m saying is is that we should just add it

3:17:29 to the actual, to the policy.

3:17:33 That’s all.

3:17:35 - Yeah.

3:17:36 - Okay, we’re good?

3:17:37 - I’m not good.

3:17:38 I didn’t say I was good.

3:17:38 - All right, well, if you wanna look at the statute,

3:17:40 I mean, it’s not, it’s just, it’s law.

3:17:44 So we spoke about this before about adding certain things

3:17:47 to the actual policy that are law, that are pertinent.

3:17:51 I think this one is one that we could do.

3:17:56 All right.

3:18:00 - So all we’re saying today is if we’re going

3:18:02 to update this policy or not.

3:18:04 We’re not deciding exactly what’s gonna go in it

3:18:06 and all that, that’s what you’re asking us.

3:18:08 - No, I just, what it is is we have this one,

3:18:11 which is, we have the update from NEOLA, right, 2270.

3:18:16 And inside of it, it does not speak to those things

3:18:19 that are inside of the floor statute,

3:18:20 which are related to this, and it’s referred to.

3:18:23 So what I’m saying is we just add those two components

3:18:26 of 1003.45, and that’s it.

3:18:29 Just add it to it.

3:18:32 We’re good?

3:18:33 - Go ahead and list in there the Constitution,

3:18:35 the First Amendment.

3:18:36 I mean, I don’t, put it all in there, as far as I’m concerned.

3:18:40 - That one’s implied.

3:18:41 - Yeah.

3:18:42 - I did click on the link.

3:18:43 I mean, is it actually linking to the whole Constitution?

3:18:45 - It does, if not all.

3:18:46 It links to Amendment.

3:18:47 - But it links to it, so.

3:18:48 - Amendment one, First Amendment.

3:18:50 - Yeah.

3:18:51 - All right, are we okay with that?

3:18:54 Ms. Jenkins, have you taken a look at it?

3:18:55 - Yeah, you skipped a couple of words,

3:18:58 so I wanted to read those, so thank you.

3:19:00 - Okay, okay, so 2270, we’re good on that.

3:19:06 Paul, you know the direction on that one?

3:19:07 - Yep.

3:19:08 - All right, 2271, Articulation and Access.

3:19:13 This is what our, to college system institutions.

3:19:17 - For secondary enrollment, ours is just titles.

3:19:19 - Yeah, it’s just, whatever, it’s the same thing.

3:19:22 - So I had a question on this one,

3:19:24 in regards to the second paragraph,

3:19:26 where we are approving participation

3:19:29 for students in grades 10, 11, and 12,

3:19:32 and the question of why not add ninth grade,

3:19:35 if it’s a possibility, for the statute to allow.

3:19:37 - She’s saying we need to change that.

3:19:43 (muffled speaking)

3:19:45 - Yeah, no, it’s okay, you’re good.

3:19:47 I can hear you, you’re–

3:19:48 - Yeah, this is one that we need to change.

3:19:51 We already have them on radar.

3:19:53 - Okay.

3:19:53 (muffled speaking)

3:19:57 - Yeah, sixth through 12th is what Florida statute says.

3:19:59 - And Neola actually has a 2023 update,

3:20:02 so I think this will probably,

3:20:03 we need to put this on the hopper.

3:20:05 - This one’s on your radar, okay.

3:20:07 (muffled speaking)

3:20:08 - Okay.

3:20:09 - So Paul, you wanna meet with staff and–

3:20:12 (muffled speaking)

3:20:13 - Okay, bring it back, okay, good.

3:20:17 Haven’t heard that in a long time.

3:20:19 - Cool beans?

3:20:20 - Yep, 2280.

3:20:21 - It’s ‘cause I’m a child of the ’80s.

3:20:25 (laughing)

3:20:26 - 2280, used to work for a lady that,

3:20:28 that’s what she said all the time.

3:20:30 - Okay, why, where are we at, all right, all right.

3:20:34 - Physical education.

3:20:35 - We go 2280, oh wait, hang on, why don’t the 22, 23?

3:20:39 - Well, we’re gonna, I mean, if you look at Neola–

3:20:41 (muffled speaking)

3:20:42 - We have a physical education.

3:20:44 - Oh, I actually have two, okay.

3:20:48 - This may be updated from this Florida statute references.

3:20:58 - Yeah, we don’t, do we not have this written in policy

3:21:00 somewhere else, like further on in the book

3:21:02 that I haven’t got to?

3:21:03 - We have a Health Committee, I don’t know if we have a,

3:21:05 do we have a physical education committee?

3:21:08 (muffled speaking)

3:21:10 - SAC, okay.

3:21:12 - What’d she say?

3:21:13 - SAC, I think she said–

3:21:14 - SAC.

3:21:17 - Like Shaquille O’Neal.

3:21:17 - Shaquille O’Neal is coming, what are you saying?

3:21:19 - We have a physical education committee in the district,

3:21:22 meets in the sunshine with regularity, it’s called SAC.

3:21:25 - Okay, cool, so in other words,

3:21:28 we’re already in compliance with the law,

3:21:29 we just don’t have a policy saying that we are.

3:21:30 - We just don’t have a policy, all right, so.

3:21:33 - Or maybe we do and it’s somewhere else I’m gonna.

3:21:36 - I think we should implement the policy.

3:21:38 - I agree.

3:21:39 (muffled speaking)

3:21:42 - All right, so I guess we need to establish

3:21:43 the amount of credits in physical education.

3:21:46 - Don’t put that in there, staff will.

3:21:48 - Staff will?

3:21:49 - Yeah.

3:21:50 - ‘Cause it says a minimum of one,

3:21:50 but it’s blank as though we’re supposed to fill it in

3:21:52 on this NEALA template.

3:21:54 - Let’s make ‘em all work out, tell ‘em 12.

3:21:56 - 25.

3:21:57 (laughing)

3:21:59 - Listen, listen.

3:22:00 - We run it every day.

3:22:02 All right, if we’re gonna move forward with this,

3:22:06 are you guys okay with us offering it to staff

3:22:09 to make that recommendation for credits?

3:22:11 And then that way we can see it coming back.

3:22:15 Are you okay with that, Ms. Campbell?

3:22:18 And then if you move.

3:22:20 - Yeah, I mean, this one I didn’t get through all the,

3:22:25 ‘cause I was mainly looking at the ones that we had.

3:22:28 That’s probably, I just, I can read really fast,

3:22:32 I can’t read this fast, but I do know,

3:22:34 I was looking just at, really briefly, the middle school

3:22:37 that you pick, you know, one class per one semester

3:22:40 per year of physical education.

3:22:42 But I know we’ve had in the past a PE waiver,

3:22:44 so I’d wanna make sure that we include that.

3:22:48 Oh, yep, I see, there’s a, for a waiver.

3:22:50 - Is that by law?

3:22:51 Is that PE waiver by law?

3:22:54 - I’m pretty sure it probably is.

3:22:56 - I believe it mentions waivers somewhere,

3:22:57 but I’d have to double check.

3:22:59 - I mean, ‘cause I–

3:22:59 - The waiver’s in the next paragraph.

3:23:01 - I wasn’t around when I was in school.

3:23:03 - I know, I, you had to go.

3:23:05 - You had to go.

3:23:06 - And the PE waiver sometimes is, I don’t know.

3:23:10 - Well, if–

3:23:10 - It’s six or 1/2 dozen, ‘cause then–

3:23:11 - If we’re gonna err on the side of parental input,

3:23:15 we better leave the PE waiver in there.

3:23:16 It is not a graduation requirement.

3:23:19 That the hope is, hope is, you know.

3:23:23 - Mr. Gibbs–

3:23:24 - That there’s ways, you know, if parents,

3:23:26 you know, you can take that through virtual school,

3:23:29 you know, to be flexible, but–

3:23:31 - Well, and some of our students, I mean,

3:23:32 my daughter’s a perfect example.

3:23:33 She plays softball, but outside of the school,

3:23:35 and so, kids getting a lot of physical activity,

3:23:38 but may not want to come into the school

3:23:39 and do PE at the school, so.

3:23:41 - Right.

3:23:41 - That’s why those waivers are useful.

3:23:42 - Maybe we make ‘em play a sport would be your waiver.

3:23:44 - Yeah, try it.

3:23:45 (laughing)

3:23:48 - It says here that we, in some of that,

3:23:50 it says that there’s a physician that needs to be involved.

3:23:52 Are we allowing that to be the level?

3:23:55 - No, right, well, I don’t know.

3:23:56 Right now, the parent has to, the parent scientist–

3:23:59 - The physician involved, where are you reading that at?

3:24:02 - It says, okay, after, so you go first whole section,

3:24:08 right, page two, and there it says provision shall be made

3:24:12 to at all levels to excuse individual students

3:24:14 from specific activity if the directions do so

3:24:16 in the writing from the student’s position.

3:24:19 - So a doctor’s name?

3:24:20 - That’s optional.

3:24:21 - Yeah, optional.

3:24:26 Yeah.

3:24:27 - I don’t know, listen, I think there’s some kids

3:24:28 that could use physical education,

3:24:29 but then again, you’re right, because what they’ll do

3:24:31 is they’ll just take it online,

3:24:32 and then we lose that FTE, I guess, you know what I mean?

3:24:35 - Well, not necessarily.

3:24:36 I mean, a lot of times, like, you know,

3:24:38 I’ve had my kids take hope online

3:24:39 so they can get another elective in.

3:24:41 - Yeah, that’s true, too.

3:24:42 That’s a good point.

3:24:44 Yeah, I think allowing the parents to make that decision.

3:24:46 - I think allowing the parents,

3:24:47 I don’t think you need to bog a physician down

3:24:49 with needing a doctor’s note to not participate in PE.

3:24:51 If a parent says a student’s not able to participate

3:24:54 for some reason, you should take their word for it

3:24:56 and honor that, right?

3:24:57 - Well, I think so.

3:24:58 - Yeah.

3:24:59 - ‘Cause Campbell makes a great point.

3:25:00 - So we won’t say student’s physician.

3:25:03 We’ll say student’s parent or guardian.

3:25:05 - Yep.

3:25:06 We good with that, Paul?

3:25:07 - Yep.

3:25:08 - All right.

3:25:14 - All right, so these policies get…

3:25:18 All right, class size.

3:25:19 - 23 and 12.

3:25:21 - Which…

3:25:26 Do we have a class size policy somewhere else?

3:25:28 - Regulated by state for class size.

3:25:30 - I know, but I’m just…

3:25:31 - This is us saying a lot more.

3:25:32 - I just looked.

3:25:33 We don’t have one that specifically says class size.

3:25:36 - No.

3:25:42 - This is, we already do this.

3:25:43 I just don’t know if we’re required to have it in policy.

3:25:46 - I think I would stay away from this one.

3:25:50 I would stay away from this one.

3:25:52 - Yeah, I think it’s a terrible idea.

3:25:53 - I think so too.

3:25:54 - It’s unrealistic.

3:25:55 - Paul, just make sure that we don’t have to have this thing

3:25:57 and I think we’re good.

3:25:59 - Yeah, we follow the statute.

3:26:00 - Yeah, I think we’re okay.

3:26:02 - Yeah.

3:26:02 - I agree with you 100%.

3:26:03 All right, 2330 homework.

3:26:06 - Okay.

3:26:07 - Oh, yeah.

3:26:08 - Here we go.

3:26:10 - This is gonna be such a good reminder.

3:26:10 I’m excited to talk to you.

3:26:11 - I share with you guys that Linda Buffum has me come in

3:26:14 and teach the last night of the Teacher Leadership Academy,

3:26:19 which I just did last week, fantastic.

3:26:21 And this is the policy I use for a group discussion.

3:26:24 I show them how to find our policies and when we’re updated,

3:26:27 but then I pull this one and I say, okay,

3:26:29 because it’s kind of short and it’s relevant to them

3:26:31 because they’re all teachers, say, take this policy.

3:26:33 She puts them in breakout rooms and they,

3:26:36 I hope they’re watching this meeting

3:26:37 because if one of their assignments

3:26:39 is they have to watch a meeting.

3:26:41 ‘Cause I told them, I’m gonna bring your input

3:26:43 to when we talk about this policy.

3:26:47 I put a break, do a breakout room.

3:26:48 How does this apply to you and your classroom

3:26:50 and bring it back?

3:26:51 So there was a lot.

3:26:52 We actually had some good discussions.

3:26:53 So if you don’t mind me taking just a few minutes,

3:26:55 I’ll walk you through.

3:26:55 - Yeah, we’d love to hear it.

3:26:56 One of the things, the first comment was that it’s vague.

3:27:00 And I did explain to them, look,

3:27:01 a lot of times our policies are vague purposefully

3:27:04 because then you as the teacher in the classroom

3:27:07 can be more specific.

3:27:07 We’re not prescripting out,

3:27:09 micromanaging how you do homework.

3:27:13 But they did have this question.

3:27:14 What does recent research say

3:27:15 about the effectiveness of homework?

3:27:18 Is it valuable?

3:27:19 What about kids with little home support?

3:27:23 There was one in letter E, it said,

3:27:26 as a valuation, excuse me, as a valid educational tool,

3:27:31 homework should be assigned with clear direction

3:27:33 and its product carefully evaluated.

3:27:35 They really thought that was important,

3:27:37 that the product should be, that that was a good thing.

3:27:41 That we have a bigger focus on homework in elementary

3:27:44 and in middle, it’s more about completing their classwork

3:27:47 if they didn’t finish it at home or review.

3:27:50 And that we could maybe use this policy

3:27:52 similar to the requests we’ve had on other policies

3:27:54 to differentiate maybe what we say about elementary

3:27:57 versus secondary because they do function differently.

3:28:02 And so maybe to break down the differences more

3:28:04 between elementary, middle school, high school,

3:28:09 where it’s less important for,

3:28:10 parents don’t really have to help.

3:28:13 And the higher up we go,

3:28:15 that the less some parents may be able to help.

3:28:19 Even me pulling back those algebra one,

3:28:22 because which I’m doing algebra one

3:28:24 for the fourth time now.

3:28:26 So, but anyway, just wanted to make sure I shared that input

3:28:30 when we look at this.

3:28:34 - I think that’s great feedback.

3:28:35 I think we should remove the line

3:28:36 where it says it should never be used as a punitive measure

3:28:39 because there are times when kids are acting up in class

3:28:43 and work can’t be done and homework gets assigned

3:28:46 and maybe that is not necessarily a punishment,

3:28:49 but it is to some degree.

3:28:51 So I think I would strike that from there.

3:28:53 Sometimes that can be a learning purpose.

3:28:55 - Yeah, I think the idea there is not unit one,

3:28:58 because obviously if you didn’t finish your homework

3:28:59 in class, your classwork in class

3:29:01 and you’ve got to finish it at home,

3:29:02 but punitive is like, okay, you guys got in trouble.

3:29:05 So you have to go home tonight and write, I will not.

3:29:07 - I love that.

3:29:08 - Duh, duh, duh for a hundred times.

3:29:09 (laughing)

3:29:11 - So, I mean, for me, I would say,

3:29:14 I think it’s something that you can put

3:29:15 in a teacher’s toolbox to be able to use to possibly help.

3:29:20 Maybe they can earn.

3:29:21 - I wholeheartedly disagree.

3:29:24 Not all of our students are going home to stable families.

3:29:27 Some of them are going to daycare

3:29:28 till seven, eight o’clock at night.

3:29:32 It absolutely should be not.

3:29:34 There should never be a negative connotation intentionally

3:29:37 surrounding your educational experience intentionally.

3:29:41 There are plenty of other consequences

3:29:43 we can assign students.

3:29:45 That is not beneficial.

3:29:46 That will not help them learn more.

3:29:49 That will absolutely not change their behavior.

3:29:50 There is no research to prove that it would.

3:29:53 And it is disproportionately going to affect our students

3:29:55 who are oftentimes the ones who are struggling the most

3:29:59 with attention or behavior.

3:30:02 I don’t think that should be at all taken out.

3:30:06 - I think teachers would know the difference

3:30:08 if a student is, go ahead.

3:30:11 - No, I didn’t just say it.

3:30:12 In practice, it’s good for it to be there.

3:30:16 Teachers know how to give that class extra homework

3:30:21 and say, it’s not punitive.

3:30:24 That’s why.

3:30:25 I mean, they’ll get it across

3:30:28 that they’re actually just doing more work.

3:30:30 - Keep the policy the same,

3:30:32 but they still just do it without that.

3:30:33 - Because again, for exact reason,

3:30:35 you’re gonna have people saying you’re giving math homework

3:30:38 because of a punishment.

3:30:40 - My son already says that and it’s not,

3:30:42 but I mean, but the actual intentionally giving it

3:30:45 as a punishment, that’s, I don’t agree.

3:30:47 - Right, so.

3:30:48 - The problem is sometimes in the classroom and at homework,

3:30:52 the reason is, is that many teachers give it

3:30:56 just because they want busy work.

3:30:57 And that’s where this homework thing started getting hit

3:31:00 with we don’t need so much homework at home, right?

3:31:02 But there is some balance to having some work done at home,

3:31:05 some work done in the classroom and stuff like that.

3:31:07 I agree with you.

3:31:08 I mean, I could have done it too.

3:31:09 I mean, you just sort of assign extra work, so.

3:31:12 - So leave it like it is.

3:31:13 - I lose this one, that’s okay.

3:31:15 - All right, moving on.

3:31:18 22, 2330, we’re moving on to 2340,

3:31:21 field trips and other travel.

3:31:29 We’re getting slap happy.

3:31:30 We only have 12 minutes, you guys.

3:31:31 We’ll get out of here.

3:31:33 - So we only got a year through 35 more policies

3:31:35 in 12 minutes, all right.

3:31:36 - Yep, and then we’ll just carry on to the season.

3:31:37 - So question before we, because we were,

3:31:42 our next workshop was May 5th and that got canceled.

3:31:46 So are we just gonna kind of hold these

3:31:49 to one of those extra Tuesdays we’re putting in there, huh?

3:31:51 - Do ‘em tonight.

3:31:52 - No, no, no, no, no.

3:31:53 - It’s what we said we would do.

3:31:55 We’re on like the 2000s right now.

3:31:57 - There’s literally no need.

3:31:58 - Hang on, Ms. Jenkins, just hang on just a second.

3:32:00 Like we literally only have a couple more to go.

3:32:02 - I’m gonna take a point of privilege

3:32:03 and tell you that my 14-year-old

3:32:05 is gonna be at home tonight by himself until I get home.

3:32:07 And I anticipate tonight might be a little bit long anyway.

3:32:10 So I would suggest that we’re, again, not in a rush.

3:32:13 We’re doing the process.

3:32:14 We’re going through there.

3:32:16 But this kind of right here, what we’re doing right now

3:32:18 is a workshop type feel time.

3:32:21 Let’s take our time.

3:32:22 Let’s not feel rushed.

3:32:24 I strongly would suggest that we have all those Tuesdays

3:32:29 that we’ve specifically set aside to do this work.

3:32:33 I would be more prepared myself

3:32:34 to pick up some of these that I missed.

3:32:37 I do not wanna try to rush through to get this done

3:32:40 at the end of a board meeting.

3:32:43 - Okay, so if you guys notice,

3:32:46 we said we needed to review the policies, right?

3:32:48 We’re on, Ms. Campbell, if you can just let me finish.

3:32:52 So if we are gonna complete these,

3:32:57 we are now on the 2000s.

3:32:59 We started this process in January.

3:33:01 And one of the issues we have

3:33:02 is we always run into these situations.

3:33:04 So what I would propose is we start at nine o’clock then.

3:33:08 And we get these things banged out during the day.

3:33:09 Because we, at this pace, we will not get these done until,

3:33:13 if we go at this pace and we start it in January

3:33:15 and now we’re doing them now, what is it, May?

3:33:17 And we’re only on the 2000s?

3:33:18 We won’t have them done before Christmas.

3:33:20 And I have an issue with that, like I really do.

3:33:23 So, I mean–

3:33:26 - Let’s keep powering through what we’re doing right now.

3:33:28 I mean, I think we do need to honor Ms. Campbell

3:33:30 and the fact that she is the mother

3:33:31 and she’s a child at home alone.

3:33:33 By all means, we don’t wanna keep you

3:33:35 from your responsibility there.

3:33:37 I hear you 100%.

3:33:38 So let’s keep going and let’s see how far we get

3:33:42 for right now.

3:33:43 - All right, we got nine minutes.

3:33:45 Field trips and other student travel.

3:33:48 It is 2340.

3:33:52 - Yeah, this one needs to be updated.

3:33:53 This one speaks to the fact of an area superintendent

3:33:55 approving all trips within the state

3:33:58 for more than two days, which we no longer

3:34:00 have area superintendents.

3:34:02 - Right, but the actual policy is reflective of–

3:34:07 - Mr. Sussan, this is one on our radar

3:34:11 that needs to be fixed.

3:34:13 - Okay.

3:34:14 - So do you wanna take this one and fix it

3:34:15 and bring it back to us with the NEOLA updates

3:34:17 that pertain to it?

3:34:19 - We will work on it.

3:34:20 - Beautiful.

3:34:20 - There actually are NEOLA updates.

3:34:21 - You’re gonna bring that back in the next two months?

3:34:24 - Yeah.

3:34:25 - So we can get all of our policies done?

3:34:27 - Two months.

3:34:28 - Okay, thank you.

3:34:29 All right, next up, 2370.

3:34:32 Let’s see here, make sure we don’t have 2370.

3:34:36 Educational options.

3:34:41 I had here just to check the statutes.

3:34:44 - This one needs a lot of updating.

3:34:47 - Yeah, well if you look at the updates that are on NEOLA,

3:34:51 there’s a couple that are there.

3:34:55 There’s a couple of options that we can choose

3:34:57 there at the bottom.

3:34:58 So if you guys will go to 2370 and go down

3:35:01 to the bottom part of the first page,

3:35:04 participation, and then it gives us a couple of options

3:35:06 to take a look at.

3:35:14 Like our maximum of credits is a little bit different

3:35:17 than what many other school districts are.

3:35:21 - Yeah, they are.

3:35:22 - All right.

3:35:29 - So I mean we award letter grades and this is option one

3:35:37 is talking about they will be evaluated on pass or fail.

3:35:40 Letter grades shall not be awarded.

3:35:46 - This one I think, I’ll be honest with you guys,

3:35:49 there’s some of these blanks that our district’s

3:35:53 gonna fill in anyway.

3:35:53 What I would like to suggest is to allow them

3:35:56 to take a look at this and come back with it

3:35:58 because they’re gonna make those suggestions

3:36:00 based on what our other policies are.

3:36:02 Does that make sense to you?

3:36:03 - Yeah.

3:36:04 - With the performance being evaluated pass fail,

3:36:06 like all of that needs to go through there.

3:36:08 Are you okay with that, Ms. Campbell, asking staff?

3:36:10 This is one of those that’s kind of,

3:36:13 we’re out of our league here I think, if that’s okay.

3:36:16 Everybody else good on that?

3:36:17 - I’m fine with that.

3:36:18 - All right.

3:36:24 2371.

3:36:26 So they have a 2370.01 which is virtual instruction.

3:36:30 - We do need that.

3:36:31 We do need that, yeah, we need that.

3:36:38 - It’ll, we don’t wanna go too fast though

3:36:41 because that graduation requirement, that’s already passed

3:36:44 where the online course requirement has been removed.

3:36:47 So let’s maybe wait until the new packet

3:36:50 comes out on this one.

3:36:52 - Okay.

3:36:53 Yeah, ‘cause we’re moving forward with stuff

3:36:55 that’s not even in there anyway.

3:36:56 Okay, all ready?

3:36:59 We’ll bring that one back.

3:37:00 - So, but we don’t, so what,

3:37:01 we currently don’t have this policy.

3:37:02 So we’re saying–

3:37:04 - Wait until, I mean, we can say implement it

3:37:06 plus that checkbox ‘cause we have a district run one

3:37:09 until the update if we need to.

3:37:11 But by the time we literally get it finished

3:37:13 through the process, it’ll be like a month

3:37:15 and then the new ones will come out.

3:37:16 - Right, the new ones will be out.

3:37:18 Well, I mean, this isn’t gonna take a priority.

3:37:20 So I would, I mean, I would say put it in the box

3:37:22 of things that needs to be done, but it’s not.

3:37:25 - We can check the box and say it’s been reviewed still,

3:37:28 even though we haven’t revised it yet.

3:37:29 Or well, we don’t have–

3:37:30 - We don’t have the box to check.

3:37:32 - Yeah, this can go at the end of the line.

3:37:33 - This one needs to be–

3:37:34 - ‘Cause we’re doing it.

3:37:35 - We are going to create it.

3:37:36 - Right.

3:37:40 - All right, if you guys go on to 2371,

3:37:43 you got V version one and I think version two.

3:37:48 You have two different versions here.

3:37:50 - So we did this in 2020 when this came with the update.

3:37:54 - It seems to me that there’s been some updates.

3:37:56 - It’s actually, we adopted it as a new policy in 2020.

3:37:58 - Mm-hmm, it seems that R’s file’s version two pretty well.

3:38:04 Oh, maybe not.

3:38:05 - I think it’s version one, maybe not.

3:38:07 - Mm-hmm, cool.

3:38:11 Seems like we’ve got some more stuff in here.

3:38:13 - Yeah, this is version one.

3:38:15 It’s like version one to the T, it looks like.

3:38:25 All right, are we okay?

3:38:27 Can it not open up my damn thing?

3:38:37 - Yeah, I’m okay with this one.

3:38:38 I think it’s good to remind people

3:38:40 that the Hope Scholarship, the last part of this policy,

3:38:42 ‘cause a lot of families don’t realize

3:38:43 that they get the Hope Scholarship for one year.

3:38:45 I’ve had parents reach out to me and they’re like,

3:38:47 “I don’t know if I’m gonna have it anymore,”

3:38:49 but that it remains in place

3:38:50 until the student graduates from high school, so.

3:38:54 Just reminding people of that.

3:38:58 - So we’re okay with taking the updated meal to version one?

3:39:01 - It’s the same. - It is the same, yeah.

3:39:02 - Is it identical? - I mean, we have numbers

3:39:04 and they have letters, that’s really the only difference.

3:39:06 - It’s a blend between the two, basically.

3:39:08 - Which one?

3:39:09 - It’s a little bit of a blend between the two.

3:39:12 - The next one should be easy.

3:39:13 We literally, this board adopted this in December.

3:39:16 - It’s, yeah, it’s the same.

3:39:18 School Health Services, yeah, this one.

3:39:19 - Oh, you don’t wanna change it a little bit?

3:39:21 (laughing)

3:39:23 We can skip it, skip a little bit, we did this one already.

3:39:25 - All right, 2411, Guidance and Counseling.

3:39:29 - This one’s gonna– - Hang on, I have to open

3:39:30 up new, have I only opened the first batch?

3:39:45 - So this is virtually the same with the exception,

3:39:48 the second part, the second section,

3:39:51 we don’t have one of the options.

3:39:53 Be the responsibility of the classroom teacher

3:39:55 who may draw upon the services, so I’m not sure.

3:40:07 - That part that we don’t have is a program

3:40:10 of Guidance or Counseling shall be offered to all students

3:40:12 and shall be the responsibility of the classroom teacher.

3:40:15 In some ways, they’re kind of doing that

3:40:18 with a mental health training, but I think that’s a lot

3:40:20 to put on them, responsibility and policy.

3:40:27 And this is an old NEOLA policy also,

3:40:30 so they don’t really have any updates.

3:40:33 - Ours is good, I mean, ours is actually better,

3:40:34 so we establish a referral system which utilizes

3:40:37 all the aid the schools and community offer, yeah.

3:40:46 - The only difference there, so we’re okay on that one?

3:40:48 - I’m okay on this one.

3:40:49 - Keeping out that, so, Paul,

3:40:51 keeping it pretty much the same, right?

3:40:54 - Yep. - Okay.

3:40:55 - They do not have a 2411.01 college

3:40:58 and career readiness assessment.

3:41:00 - I like it, I’ll keep what we have.

3:41:03 If you guys wanna put in there anything about workforce,

3:41:05 that’s what my note said, anything about trades.

3:41:07 Talks about college career readiness,

3:41:09 instruction through regular school programs

3:41:11 prior to high school graduation, college career readiness.

3:41:14 As long as you feel that that says, you know what I mean,

3:41:17 that there’s– - We still do that, right?

3:41:20 College career readiness assessment.

3:41:23 The number on B, number two, it says Florida Virtual School

3:41:25 may be used to provide the college career instruction.

3:41:31 I mean, I don’t know, ‘cause we have BBS.

3:41:34 - I would say, let’s not let’s–

3:41:36 - For the college career and decision making course,

3:41:40 and students are allowed to substitute that

3:41:41 with virtual school if they choose.

3:41:43 - Can we make it to where they’re not allowed

3:41:45 to go to Florida Virtual School and they have to go to ours?

3:41:47 - No. (laughs)

3:41:49 - Just put it in there. - By law.

3:41:50 - Through Brevard Virtual School, the course,

3:41:53 and many of our students do it.

3:41:54 State law’s pretty specific on the virtual options.

3:41:59 - Mine is taking it right now,

3:42:00 through Brevard Virtual School.

3:42:02 - Thank you, Ms. Campbell. - Shout out to BBS.

3:42:04 - How about we take out the Florida piece

3:42:06 and just put virtual school may be used?

3:42:08 Is that better? - Roger that.

3:42:10 - Okay, we’re good there, Paul.

3:42:12 - We’re gonna make that one change.

3:42:14 We’re gonna make, go through the whole policy

3:42:15 so we can make that one change.

3:42:17 - Well, I– - Well, I hear ya.

3:42:20 - Okay. - I’m just gonna,

3:42:21 I don’t know if anybody’s watching,

3:42:23 ‘cause we’ve been so boring for the last little bit.

3:42:25 But I just have to say,

3:42:27 people need to understand Brevard Virtual,

3:42:29 you can do everything with Brevard Virtual,

3:42:31 just about as you can do with Florida Virtual School,

3:42:33 unless there’s just a course that we don’t offer,

3:42:35 but all the courses, most of the courses

3:42:37 your kids are gonna take,

3:42:37 you can do through Brevard Virtual School.

3:42:38 Keep it local.

3:42:39 - All right, 2412, we’ve got

3:42:41 homebound instructional program.

3:42:45 We have, it’s pretty much identical.

3:42:47 - Identical, there’s a line in here.

3:42:49 I have a question, I understand why it’s in there,

3:42:52 being someone who had to teach hospital homebound.

3:42:56 But I just wanna make sure that we’re still legal

3:42:59 by having it in there.

3:43:00 The part that we have the right

3:43:01 to schedule the time and place.

3:43:03 I totally understand why it’s in there.

3:43:06 Yeah, I just wanna make sure that we’re still

3:43:09 allowed to do that.

3:43:10 - I taught homebound also.

3:43:13 Great opportunity.

3:43:14 All right, we’re good to go there?

3:43:15 - Yeah.

3:43:16 - All right, so what we’ll do is it’s 4.30,

3:43:19 if we can earmark and say 2416.

3:43:24 And then you guys feel okay that if–

3:43:27 - 2415, because Neela has a 2415.

3:43:29 - Yeah, oh, dang it.

3:43:31 So you guys okay that if we move

3:43:33 the school board meeting to a certain time,

3:43:35 we can get a couple more in?

3:43:36 Or do you guys wanna cancel off

3:43:37 and do ‘em at the next workshop?

3:43:40 It’s up to you guys.

3:43:43 - Sorry, say that again.

3:43:44 - If we have a school board meeting

3:43:45 that literally gets done at seven o’clock,

3:43:49 but it might not ‘cause we have like an hour

3:43:51 and a half of administrators, but–

3:43:53 - Yeah, I mean–

3:43:54 - I just, listen, I–

3:43:55 - It’s seven o’clock, by all means, let’s go.

3:43:56 - Let’s just do this.

3:43:57 I understand that we don’t wanna go into the night, right?

3:44:00 - Yeah.

3:44:01 - But we’ve gotta get these done.

3:44:02 - I know, I agree 100%.

3:44:03 - So if we can kinda find a schedule that works in both,

3:44:07 I’m okay with it, as I have been since the beginning,

3:44:09 but I’d appreciate that.

3:44:10 That cool?

3:44:11 - I mean, I didn’t know why we canceled May 5th.

3:44:13 - Yeah, I wasn’t–

3:44:14 - ‘Cause it’s Cinco de Mayo.

3:44:15 - Is that why it was canceled?

3:44:17 - Well, it’s also my daughter’s birthday,

3:44:18 but I mean, I was still willing to go in the morning.

3:44:20 I mean, we’re all going out for tacos instead of–

3:44:22 - Why did we cancel May 5th?

3:44:23 - We’re going in the morning, too.

3:44:24 - All right, we’re good.

3:44:26 Let’s gavel this and go.

3:44:27 - Okay.

3:44:28 - All right, good, talk to you guys.

3:44:29 (gavel bangs)

3:44:30 There we go.

3:44:31 (upbeat music)