Updates on the Fight for Quality Public Education in Brevard County, FL
0:00 Thank you.
5:29 I think Ms. Campbell, the last meeting when we originally
5:39 workshopped this, you had asked
5:40 this question in regards to our health curriculum being
5:42 submitted to the state and approved.
5:44 And I’m not sure.
5:45 And I’m not sure, has that been approved yet?
5:46 I know you had mentioned that the elementary portion of this
5:48 wouldn’t come until I think
5:49 May, I believe is what you said, but the secondary?
5:51 That is correct.
5:53 And so we did submit it by the deadline to the DOE.
5:59 We submitted it, but we submitted it, I don’t have it, I don’t
6:04 have it in front of me, but I think
6:07 I think the deadline was September 29th to submit to the state.
6:10 Okay.
6:11 And so we did it, I don’t have it, I don’t have it, I don’t have
6:19 it, I don’t have it in front of it, but I don’t have it in front
6:23 of me, but I don’t have it in front of me, but I don’t have it
6:23 in front of me, but I don’t have it in front of me, but I don’t
6:24 have it in front of me, but I don’t have it in front of me, but
6:24 I don’t have it in front of me, but I don’t have it in front of
6:24 me, I don’t have it in front of me, but I don’t have it in front
6:25 of me, but I don’t have it in front of me.
6:26 So the question was, has it been board approved before? If it
6:29 has, it’ll probably be state approved, but you need to get it
6:33 board approved. So that’s where we are with that. So we have not
6:37 heard back from the state yet, but we are very concerned because
6:40 we’re progressing, you know, to the end of the first grading
6:44 period. So we really do need those materials to be state
6:48 approved to follow the law, but that’s where we are with the
6:52 state. Okay. Absolutely. Go ahead.
6:56 Do we make changes or is it the same material that we approved
7:00 last year?
7:01 We actually did make changes based on some feedback from someone
7:05 that came and spoke one night. So one of the resources that we
7:10 were using for a dating violence lesson, that resource had some
7:15 other lessons in there. We were not using them, but if you go to
7:20 the one resource, those were available. So we have gone with
7:24 another resource.
7:26 For that piece. So we did pull that. I believe the resource was
7:30 called one love.
7:31 Yes, yes, yes. Can I make a suggestion? I don’t know if it’s
7:37 possibly that we can approve it pending state approval. So they
7:41 have some kind of half and half and we all get there at the same
7:44 time.
7:45 - Is that allowable, Paul? I don’t know if that’s a, I guess if
7:51 you, if…
7:51 - Sounds like the DOE is confused.
7:53 - I honestly think they might be understaffed as well. Yeah.
7:57 - Yeah, my guess is they don’t have the personnel to get through
8:00 every district’s material.
8:02 Um, I think the board could certainly do that given the
8:06 direction that staffs received from the DOE. So if the board
8:10 makes a motion to approve pending state approval as the DOE is
8:14 advised, then I think the board would be okay.
8:17 - We can write that up on the agenda item, correct?
8:22 - Yeah, put it on there that DOE advised us to get a board
8:25 approved prior to state approval. And that way it’s clear that
8:28 the board’s acting on DOE advice.
8:30 - Okay. Okay.
8:33 - Good. Everybody else okay? Thank you, Paul. Good. All right.
8:39 Moving on.
8:40 - Thank you, Ms. Nairn.
8:41 - Last public hearing is rule development for board policy 5460
8:45 graduation requirements. Is there anyone here who wishes to
8:47 address this item?
8:48 Is there anyone here who wishes to address this item?
8:51 Any, nobody seeing none? Anybody on the, as a board member wish
8:57 to, uh, speak to the, uh, meeting dates?
9:00 Ms. Campbell, you had some concerns. Somebody had mentioned you
9:04 may have some concerns on the meeting dates?
9:06 - On the, oh, on the meeting dates. I thought we were on-
9:08 - Graduation requirements?
9:10 - That’s-
9:11 - Oh, yeah, yeah. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.
9:12 - Oh, yeah, yeah.
9:14 - Oh, not one.
9:15 - Anybody have any questions on the graduation requirements?
9:18 All right. Hearing none, we’ll move on. Next topic is the
9:24 comprehensive coordinated early intervening services.
9:27 I think we have a presentation here by Ms. Bias.
9:33 - Yeah, Mr. Chair, just to remind everybody in the audience that
9:37 may not be aware and refresh the memory of the board is,
9:39 we presented some CCEIS data a month or so ago, a couple months
9:44 ago, and that data was all broken down by ethnic subgroup, and
9:50 that’s how it’s reported to us by the state.
9:51 That’s typically one of the areas that you could be cited for if
9:55 your different subgroups have a higher likelihood of being
10:01 suspended versus others.
10:03 The board asked to look at this data from a couple different
10:07 lenses.
10:07 So the presentation today is about that same CCEIS data from the
10:12 lens of a subgroup of students with disabilities.
10:15 So that’s the data that staff is going to share with us today.
10:20 And, you know, they’re going to see some positive uses of the
10:26 data and how we can use the data to inform some of our decisions.
10:29 So I’m going to turn it over to Mrs. Dampere and Dr. Bias.
10:33 They’re going to lead us through the presentation.
10:35 - Good afternoon, board members.
10:46 Today, Dr. Bias will provide an overview of the data that was
10:51 requested.
10:52 We did a presentation on August 22nd.
10:55 I want to remind everyone, this is lagging data.
10:59 This is two-year-old data.
11:00 And so you asked for some, you know, updated data.
11:04 And this data is lagging as well.
11:07 It’s not going to be a comprehensive current data like we will
11:11 see when we do an updated on academics as well as discipline
11:16 coming up sometime this month.
11:19 So I’ll turn it over to Dr. Bias and I’ll jump in as needed.
11:23 - All right.
11:25 Thank you very much.
11:25 I appreciate the time to go a little bit deeper into the
11:29 conversation with our CCEIS group.
11:31 So as Ms. Dampere said, this is lag data.
11:35 And based on that 2021-22 data, that is how our district has
11:42 been designated as CCEIS.
11:44 So it’s two years old.
11:46 But as far as then the plan that was submitted to the DOE for CCEIS
11:52 and an action plan, it’s based on the 22-23 students with
11:57 disabilities.
11:58 So we can see two different years, the 20-21 and the 21-22 where
12:05 we were over the three, which is indicated as like the red zone.
12:10 And three times more likely that that particular subgroup had
12:14 disciplinary action taken.
12:16 And for our CCEIS, as a reminder, it’s out of school suspension
12:19 more than 10 days.
12:21 So looking ahead already with our last year data, we can see
12:25 that we’re already in the green and out of the red for the same
12:29 subgroup.
12:30 So the data that we’re going to talk about today is based on the
12:34 22-23 students with disabilities and for our African-American
12:39 subgroup.
12:40 And we’re at 2.58, but again, we have 101 students that we’re
12:45 going to dive into a little bit deeper today.
12:47 First thing we’ll take a look at is the 101 students.
12:52 Here’s the breakup of the students by disability.
12:55 And what you’ll probably notice right off the bat is about 55
12:59 students, more than half, are students with disabilities for
13:04 specific learning disabilities.
13:06 The other quarter would be are they’re health impaired.
13:10 And then the other quarter is comprised of our students with
13:13 emotional behavioral disabilities, intellectual disabilities,
13:17 autism spectrum disorder, and developmental delays.
13:21 So that pie chart kind of represents then the students from the
13:24 subgroup that we determined for our plan, 101.
13:28 So this right here kind of breaks down definitions for all six
13:33 of those subgroups there.
13:35 And it’s important to keep in mind that all our students are
13:38 general education students first.
13:40 And what this kind of signifies is something individual that our
13:45 students need on top of.
13:46 And so it’s very specific in our responsibility that we want to
13:50 tear down or break down those barriers that are impeding
13:53 progress and impeding learning.
13:55 So for our students with disabilities, and specific learning
13:59 disabilities, those students have some difficulty processing
14:03 information.
14:04 It may impact listening, speaking, reading, writing, math, even
14:09 spelling.
14:10 And for our students, it could be mild or moderate.
14:13 So it could be 30 minutes a week that we’re working to support a
14:16 goal that has been identified and individualized for them.
14:19 Or it could be 300 minutes a week.
14:21 That’s important.
14:22 Then we’re looking at the strategies and accommodations that
14:25 help level that playing field for them and align those so that
14:30 we’re using our informed data-driven decisions to see what’s
14:34 working, what’s not working.
14:35 For example, a student may be needing text-to-speech, so they
14:39 may be a sixth-grade student but reading on a second-grade level.
14:42 And we’re assessing comprehension at that point.
14:44 So we’re looking at just different ways that we can break down
14:48 that barrier so that they can have an immersive reader or snap-and-read.
14:53 And then it’s doing a text-to-speech and reading it, so we’re
14:56 actually assessing comprehension and not the reading as the
15:00 barrier.
15:00 Additional time, repeated directions, visuals, and just the way
15:05 we present information can help our students with specific
15:08 learning disabilities.
15:08 Can I ask a question real fast just to hop in here as you’re
15:11 going through this?
15:12 So some of these definitions here are definitely doctor
15:16 diagnosis, but some of them look like they may not be.
15:17 So is this a range, are we diagnosing some of these children or
15:21 are these all coming to us with a diagnosis from a doctor?
15:23 So for specific learning disabilities, that is not a diagnosis
15:27 from a doctor.
15:28 When we get to other health-impaired, there may be a diagnosis
15:31 there from a doctor.
15:33 So our staff is doing the analysis then at that point, is that
15:35 correct?
15:36 Okay, just trying to have a full understanding of it.
15:38 Thank you.
15:39 You’re welcome.
15:40 Well, can I just jump in just in case?
15:42 And I might be misinterpreting your understanding of that, but I
15:46 just want to make it clear.
15:47 So our educational institution doesn’t diagnose, period.
15:51 So we will do assessments for things like ADD and ASD, but they
15:57 become an educational diagnosis.
15:58 So that diagnosis cannot be used out in the medical community,
16:01 even though it has the same label or identifying name.
16:05 For the OHI, if a parent comes in with a medical doctor
16:10 diagnosis that’s used for their IEP or 504 or whatever services
16:15 they may need.
16:16 But we are never doing the assessment to identify a medical
16:20 diagnosis ever.
16:21 Okay, well, that was just kind of my question.
16:24 Okay, like some of these, like the SLD and then the EBD, I’m
16:27 like, those don’t look like they’re coming.
16:29 That could be us that’s doing the evaluation.
16:31 That’s what I was just trying to understand.
16:32 Yeah, and it’s super confusing for families, especially when it
16:35 comes to ASD, because often the first place that a parent is
16:38 told that that might be going on with their child is in the
16:41 school.
16:41 And so then they go through this process with their school, and
16:45 they get confused because they think that their child has then
16:48 been successfully identified, but they can’t go use that to get
16:51 medical services outside in the community.
16:52 They’re going to have to go through that process outside of
16:54 school.
16:54 Wow.
16:55 So it’s a little bit confusing.
16:57 So sometimes you’ll have students that maybe necessarily are
17:02 labeled in the medical world with ASD, but their struggles aren’t
17:05 as significant in the school system.
17:06 And they’ll actually fall under a different one, like SLD or
17:10 something else, or OHI versus ASD.
17:12 It’s complicated, but I just want to make that clear.
17:15 We do not do medical diagnoses.
17:18 All right.
17:19 Thank you.
17:20 Definitely can be very complicated.
17:22 So other health impaired can be a chronic or acute health
17:26 condition that adversely affects educational performance.
17:30 And so that example could be the asthma, ADD, ADHD, Tourette’s
17:35 syndrome, heart condition.
17:37 And so again, that can also be mild to moderate, and you’re
17:40 looking for the impact on the educational environment, and then
17:44 what we can do to mitigate those factors that are causing the
17:47 barriers to their learning.
17:49 For emotional behavioral disabilities, that’s a student with
17:52 consistent emotional or behavioral response that’s negatively
17:56 impacting, again, their educational environment.
17:59 And so students would have a functional behavioral assessment,
18:03 and we’re identifying then what is the function of the behavior,
18:06 and then identifying what interventions we want to put in place
18:09 to, again, help remedy that and align that with their behavior
18:14 plan.
18:14 We could also have some social emotional goals that are very
18:18 specific and target those coping mechanisms and just some
18:21 opportunities to regulate emotions in a variety of settings.
18:26 Our intellectual disabilities, those are our students with the
18:29 most significant cognitive impairments, and it can be affecting
18:33 two areas of function.
18:34 That’s intellectual function, which is going to be our learning,
18:38 problem solving, and judgment, and then also adaptive
18:41 functioning.
18:41 So looking at daily life skills, and then communication, and
18:46 also independent living.
18:47 As far as the individual–or the intellectual disabilities, that
18:52 can start very early in–as far as deficits in the developmental
18:56 period.
18:57 And it’s also–I wanted to add here that as far as the federal
19:01 target, it’s not to exceed 1% of then the alternate assessment.
19:06 And so we’re right at that mark, but we’re still below the state
19:12 for 1%.
19:13 So it’s measuring then participation in ELA, math, science, as
19:18 far as the alternate assessment, the FSAA.
19:21 But I thought that was important here for our intellectual
19:24 disabilities.
19:25 The next one up is our autism spectrum disorder, and this one
19:30 has quite a wide range.
19:31 So we’re looking at atypical development that varies from one
19:35 student to another with a pattern of impairment.
19:37 And it could be in their social interaction, communication, or
19:41 some repetitive and/or stereotype patterns.
19:43 And sometimes that can be for students flapping and stemming.
19:47 But we have other students, and you know, they don’t exhibit
19:50 those behaviors, and they just have some brilliant minds.
19:52 And those students would then have–be in our ASD.
19:57 The last one I’ll talk about is developmental delay.
20:00 And this one is for students ages 3 to 5.
20:04 And it can be any of these categories as far as adaptive, self-help,
20:08 cognitive, communication, social-emotional development, or even
20:12 physical development.
20:13 And this one legislation changed last year.
20:16 It used to be they would be developmental delays until 6, and
20:21 then you’re looking to see if there’s any other supports that
20:24 are needed.
20:25 But now it’s been extended to age 9 or the completion of second
20:30 grade.
20:30 So a student who has a developmental delay can continue in that
20:34 up to age 9 or completion of second grade.
20:37 Okay, I have another question.
20:38 Sure.
20:39 Sorry.
20:40 Again, I really want to understand fully.
20:41 So could you have a child potentially labeled with more than one
20:44 of these?
20:44 Yes.
20:45 So then how does that compare when you’re looking at your data
20:48 that you’re breaking out 101 students?
20:49 So if you have a child that’s got three of these on there, how
20:53 do you rank them?
20:53 Where do they fall?
20:54 So primary disability.
20:56 Okay.
20:57 So the students, the 101 and the breakup on the pie chart before,
21:01 they could have SLD and they could also have language impaired
21:04 or speech.
21:04 Right.
21:05 So they could have multiple, but it was based on the primary
21:08 disability.
21:09 Okay.
21:10 And again, just to understand, so that is established by us at BPS.
21:15 So, okay.
21:16 All right.
21:17 And just follow up question.
21:18 These 101 students, is that pre-K through 12 or K through 12 or
21:24 what age?
21:25 So they were all K to 12.
21:27 K to 12.
21:28 Okay.
21:29 Yep.
21:30 Okay.
21:31 Thank you.
21:32 All right.
21:33 So this next one is a continuum of service.
21:37 And what I love about this is the label does not define the
21:41 placement.
21:42 So really it comes down to what a student needs.
21:45 They may have SLD.
21:47 And it may be that the, you know, least restrictive environment
21:51 is where we can support them.
21:52 And that would be in a regular class placement 80% more of the
21:56 school day with non-disabled
21:57 peers.
21:58 They may have more needs than that.
21:59 And then it’s a resource setting.
22:01 And that would be our 40 to 79%.
22:03 It could also be a separate class placement.
22:06 So this kind of graphic really does exemplify the fact that it’s
22:10 not driven by a label.
22:11 It’s driven by need and individual needs at that.
22:14 So the IEP team that will develop an IEP.
22:17 And then the last thing that they would do is say, all right,
22:21 where can this IEP be?
22:21 Implemented and what would be the most appropriate to match
22:25 where the student needs are?
22:26 I did want to add on this one.
22:28 I looked up our annual performance for Brevard.
22:31 And we’re meeting all targets in every one of those categories.
22:35 Before I talked about discipline identification and placement.
22:39 That’s what they monitor for CCEIS.
22:42 And while we’re discipline related in the CCEIS, the placement
22:46 we’re doing quite well.
22:47 The target for regular class placement is 77.69.
22:52 That’s a state target.
22:53 And we’re at 80.39 for regular class placement.
22:57 For the self-contained setting, less than 13.35%.
23:02 And we are at 11.25 in our self-contained separate class
23:07 placement.
23:08 And then they also measure separate day school.
23:10 And that’s, the target is less than 3.23 and we’re at 1.83.
23:15 Can I ask a follow-up question about that?
23:17 Sure.
23:18 Those numbers you just read, is that for overall, for all of our
23:23 ESC students or specifically to this subgroup that we’re talking
23:25 about?
23:25 For all.
23:26 Okay.
23:27 And are those percentages at all driven by capacity issues that
23:32 we might have as far as the separate day school or things of
23:35 that nature?
23:35 No.
23:36 No?
23:37 Okay.
23:38 And are those, are those numbers comparative to other districts
23:42 in a database somewhere where we, they have like Seminole,
23:46 Indian River and all of those?
23:47 Kind of like they do for all of the other ones?
23:50 Mm-hmm.
23:51 The annual performance report comes out and they have, actually
23:55 it’s on the DOE site that you get all of them.
23:57 Right.
23:58 Same place you get the CAF or same place you get all that from
24:00 those.
24:00 I just wanted to make sure there was a place you could go
24:02 compare them.
24:02 Thank you.
24:03 I think you might be fine.
24:04 That’s probably a good thing.
24:06 All right.
24:07 So this, the next few slides will focus on our 101 students.
24:12 So we looked at grade level and, you know, again, this is last
24:17 year, the students in this category 101 is last year’s data.
24:21 And the majority is in our secondary, our middle and high.
24:25 And I think we have at least 70% right there coming from those
24:30 categories.
24:31 We have some elementary and I have two that were withdrawn, but
24:35 the majority are in secondary for the 101 students.
24:38 We looked at homeless, whether or not that was a factor here.
24:44 And we had 100 students that it was a no and one out of the 101.
24:51 We also looked at free and reduced lunch.
24:53 We had 96 on free and reduced and then five who were not.
25:01 We looked at previous retention.
25:03 This one you don’t have on your slides, but I added under
25:06 construction.
25:06 We were in here yesterday having a conversation.
25:09 I was looking at this again and it said 81 no and then 20 yes.
25:16 And so my next slide made me think and then going back into
25:20 focus.
25:20 We have to dive a little deeper because there may have been
25:23 something in the transference of AS400 to focus that we need to
25:26 dive a little deeper.
25:27 But right now we have 81 not retained and 20 who are, but I need
25:34 to go back on that one.
25:36 So this one is the first available statewide assessment that we
25:41 could find.
25:42 Because all our students are at different grade levels as we saw
25:45 in the previous slide, it may not be the third grade one.
25:48 It could have been the sixth or seventh grade.
25:50 So it was the first available one we had.
25:52 And for 101, 92 of them scored a level one or two.
25:56 We had six that scored a three or above and then no record was
26:00 found on three of them.
26:01 And here’s the makeup again, same slide previously.
26:04 The biggest takeaway I have on this one is for the 67 that we
26:11 did have for third grade, 93% of those students were level one,
26:16 two.
26:17 And I think that’s significant because if we look at the
26:20 research there, if we talk about one and six, if they’re not
26:23 reading on third grade level, will not graduate on time with
26:27 their cohort.
26:28 And 23% will end up dropping out or not finishing altogether.
26:32 So that third grade one is significant for a number of reasons.
26:36 And so 93% at this point in time of the 67 out of 101 had a
26:45 score of a level one or two.
26:49 All right.
26:50 So we’re going to go a little bit deeper on the 44 high school
26:53 students and see how they’re doing and whether or not they’re on
26:56 track for graduating.
26:57 And so we were able to obtain for the high school ELA to
27:02 graduate a requirement in grades 10 through 12, three were proficient
27:08 and 29 scored a level one, two.
27:10 Of the three, those are on alternate assessment so that you have
27:15 that knowledge there.
27:17 And then algebra one EOC, we had four proficient level three,
27:21 but we have 35 score level one, two.
27:24 So the difference in those numbers is algebra one EOC can be
27:28 taken before the 10th through 12th, but we were able to
27:32 determine then the scores for those grade levels there.
27:36 Current enrollment of our 44, we found 35 actively enrolled and
27:41 they can be in a variety of settings there.
27:43 And then nine were inactive.
27:45 So then I went back and I’m like, well, where are the inactive?
27:49 Two did graduate, two transferred in state to another public
27:54 school, two transferred out of state to another public school,
27:58 two are not enrolled.
28:00 And then one actually just showed back up yesterday.
28:06 It’s moving data.
28:08 So out of all of that, we have 74%, I calculated 26 out of 35,
28:13 not on track with their graduating class, that cohort.
28:17 So we wanted to dive a little bit deeper into the high school.
28:21 This one right here, looking at the 101, do they have current
28:28 behavior plans?
28:29 And do they have current social emotional behavior goals?
28:33 And so the majority there, well, we’ve got two thirds have both.
28:37 And I think that’s, that’s super important because again, we’re
28:41 talking about how we can support students to mitigate any
28:44 barriers that are either, you know, related to a manifestation
28:48 or related to, again, whatever is causing them a outcome in the
28:55 discipline realm.
28:56 Going back then and looking at before the out of school
29:00 suspension happened in the 10 days.
29:03 Did they have the behavior plan?
29:05 Did they have a social emotional goal?
29:07 What’s really interesting in this one is out of the, we had 25
29:11 less here that didn’t have either one at the time.
29:15 But then it started again, any data you’re continuing to dive
29:21 deep, it’s like, could it have been something that was an
29:24 automatic, maybe 10 day pending, and we didn’t have a chance to
29:28 even put in a behavior plan or put in a social emotional goal?
29:31 That could potentially happen.
29:33 So then we dug a little bit deeper into the 25 and I was kind of
29:38 looking and thinking maybe it was related to drugs or weapons or
29:42 something along those lines.
29:44 And that was not the case.
29:45 It’s pretty scattered with the 25 to go and try and figure out
29:50 then why 25 did not.
29:51 All right, next one up.
29:55 This one is whether or not they were here for their entirety.
30:02 And out of the 101, 75% of them did start in Brevard, either in
30:08 pre-K or kindergarten.
30:10 So we just have a few there, 24 out of the 101 that entered
30:20 second grade and beyond.
30:23 So thinking about CCEIS and the plan, we do have six schools, I
30:27 identified that last time.
30:28 And we did have a training already on September 19th with those
30:33 six schools and their identified group that they wanted to bring.
30:36 And we did focus on functional behavior assessments and we did
30:39 focus on behavior plans.
30:40 Because while we know the 101 at this moment in time, we also
30:45 want to look at those early warning systems.
30:48 And so looking at, you know, students that may be having
30:52 difficulty, ensuring that we have the opportunities and supports
30:55 and aligned and interventions for students that may be rising.
30:59 So we did both on that day on September 19th.
31:03 And it really is all about the problem solving piece of that.
31:07 That’s tier two, tier three, but not losing sight of our tier
31:14 one supports, which are district wide and again, available using
31:19 our data sources that we have in focus.
31:22 We have a lot of different trainings that really hit the mark on
31:26 supporting our schools and our teachers and very popular.
31:29 So the behavior intervention toolbox, we started last year, they
31:34 actually walk away with a toolbox of items and how to use those
31:37 within a classroom setting.
31:38 We added visual supports because in walking classrooms last year
31:43 and supporting some of our ESC teachers, realizing going back in
31:47 the beginning, visual supports is probably a huge one right now
31:49 for our SLD kiddos and needing those levels of support so that
31:54 it’s not a confusion on what’s being expected.
31:56 We have that training added.
31:59 We have communication and then new this year through Fiddler’s
32:02 discretionary project.
32:03 We have disability awareness training.
32:05 We do have that built into the four days of PD pathways.
32:09 So any new teacher that comes into Provard, we build that into
32:13 the summer and into the fall and into the spring.
32:16 And it’s one of the four days where we go over disability
32:21 awareness all day long on that one.
32:23 But you can see key elements, which is all related to behavior.
32:27 And then we have another day on policies, procedures, and
32:30 behavior management, and then also specially designed
32:34 instruction.
32:35 So that one’s been, we run those on summer, like I said.
32:38 And then we did Saturdays four times during the, that’s coming
32:44 up in, we do that in the, one of them is going to be a Thursday.
32:47 We switched it.
32:48 We always were doing Saturdays, but then we get the feedback and
32:51 it’s like, well, I can’t always do Saturdays.
32:52 So we switch it to like Thursdays.
32:54 And then also this is the FBA and BIT training that Lauren Deuce
33:00 is doing with Mr. Reed and the MTSS framework and behavior.
33:06 So lots of great PD.
33:09 So it’s coming at all different angles and supporting the needs
33:12 that are out there.
33:13 And we do a lot of follow up with the training as well to see
33:18 the implementation of that PD to practice.
33:22 Okay.
33:23 All right.
33:24 Any board members have anything else to add?
33:26 Okay.
33:27 Thank you for that.
33:33 So I have a couple of things here.
33:38 I, this is obviously something that I care deeply about.
33:42 I brought it up in December, we’re here 10 months later, taking
33:47 a deeper dive into the data that not only myself,
33:51 but community members have presented over and over and over
33:56 again.
33:56 And so I’m glad that we’re here having this conversation.
33:58 Dr. Randell, you obviously were not a part of it at that time.
34:00 So this is no shade on you.
34:02 I’m glad we’re having this conversation, but I’m going to, I’m
34:06 going to say a couple things.
34:06 And then I’m going to ask questions.
34:07 You probably don’t have the answers to right now, but I think it’s
34:10 important for us to get those answers.
34:11 And I want my fellow board members to hear them so that when
34:14 they get them in an email or whatever, they know where it’s
34:17 coming from.
34:18 So what I want to know is the numbers of students with
34:28 disabilities and the label that they’re given, so SLD, ASD, EBD,
34:37 the numbers that you presented were for that one subgroup for
34:41 our black students.
34:41 Is that proportionate to their same age white peers?
34:46 And the reason I’m asking is because it’s a general
34:52 understanding when you’re in the ASD world, you can’t really
34:57 ignore it with your eyes, that so many of our black students are
35:01 identified with different labels than compared to their white
35:03 peers.
35:03 And so I would like to see that on paper proven to me rather
35:07 than just an assumption.
35:09 But what I mean by that is there are way less black students
35:14 identified as ASD typically than their white peers.
35:19 And that’s typically because of an unconscious or conscious bias
35:24 against those students, as well as a heightened number of black
35:28 students get identified as EBD than compared to their white
35:31 peers.
35:31 And why that matters is because traditionally those labels are
35:35 happening really early in their educational career.
35:37 And when you’re labeling a student a certain way because of a
35:41 bias, that is basically creating their trajectory for the rest
35:45 of their educational career.
35:47 And we need to be aware of that if it’s happening.
35:50 So I would like to see the numbers on that.
35:52 And I apologize, I know you don’t have that here.
35:55 Again, this was data on students who had OSS for more than 10
36:00 days.
36:00 So I don’t know what would be easier for you to disseminate it
36:03 that way or if you can just do holistically for me too.
36:06 Whatever one is easier for you to break apart.
36:09 So I was just going to say for CCEIS they do four categories and
36:13 it is for identification.
36:15 So we do not have any disproportionate identification in any
36:20 areas for any of our races at this moment in time.
36:24 So I do have that information.
36:26 I didn’t bring it with me today.
36:27 So the screen that starts off by saying we were red flagged for
36:32 over three, is that what that’s showing us?
36:36 No, no, no.
36:37 That one was for discipline only.
36:39 That’s the only category that were in CCEIS for 10 days out of
36:44 school suspension or more.
36:45 Okay.
36:46 So let me say this differently.
36:47 We may not be red flagged by the state for it, but I still would
36:51 like to see the numbers.
36:52 Because for instance, like the discipline one, we’re not red
36:55 flagged anymore, but it’s still way different than their white
37:00 peers.
37:00 So I would just, I would still like to see the numbers.
37:02 Just because we’re not being red flagged doesn’t mean that it’s
37:05 still the best thing for our students.
37:07 And I think we need to know about it.
37:09 As well as for placement, I’m curious about as well.
37:13 So not just label.
37:16 I’m really excited that they extended DD to second grade.
37:20 Because anyone with an early childhood development expertise
37:24 would agree that that makes sense.
37:25 You can’t just catch up within a year or two.
37:27 So I appreciate that.
37:28 And I think that would help some of the concern I have about my
37:31 previous question.
37:32 Because often in the pre-K world, we had black students or
37:36 Hispanic students labeled as DD.
37:38 And when they transitioned into kindergarten, they’d get labeled
37:42 something for a bias and carry that through their entire
37:45 educational career.
37:45 So it gives more time for that student to catch up, to acclimate,
37:49 to have more adults on them before that label is either
37:53 transferred or hopefully removed.
37:55 The one thing that we didn’t talk about too was another concern
38:02 of mine is the disproportionate.
38:05 I already asked you this, so you’re going to get it to us more
38:08 specifically.
38:09 But the disproportionality between placement when it comes to
38:12 our black students in ALCs and our black students in EBD
38:15 classrooms.
38:15 Again, you can’t walk into those spaces and not see it for your
38:19 own eyes.
38:19 And it’s a really negative reflection for this district.
38:25 But again, I said this back in December.
38:27 It is not to put blame on the people who are sitting here right
38:31 now, but we also can’t see it and ignore it.
38:34 So when we have almost 50% of our students in our ALC of a
38:39 minority population, that should be a concern to us when, demographically,
38:43 they’re doing the same offenses as their same age white peers.
38:46 So we need to take a look at that.
38:48 When we get that information, I want to say this one more time.
39:03 I know we’re specifically looking at students with disabilities
39:06 because we’re talking to the two of you.
39:07 But again, as a district, we need to take a hard look systemically
39:12 at what’s happening here.
39:13 Because Brevard Public Schools has a – we are above the state.
39:19 We have a wider gap in ELA and math gaps between black and white
39:24 peers across the board, not just in the area of students with
39:28 disabilities.
39:28 So I’m really glad we’re talking about this.
39:31 I hope that this conversation goes a little bit further.
39:34 And I hope we actually put a plan in place to do something about
39:37 it like our community has been begging us to do over and over
39:40 again.
39:40 Because we are here to do everything that’s best for all of our
39:43 kids.
39:43 And when we elevate one of them, we elevate all of them.
39:46 And the conversation about pre-K towards the end, it was a
39:52 conversation that I had with Dr. Rendell.
39:54 And I think it was – it might have been Ms. Hanton.
39:57 I’m not sure.
39:58 When we’re talking about just like brainstorming choice options
40:01 and things of that nature, you know, one of the things that I
40:04 believe is really, really important when we look at our students
40:07 that have attended pre-K for BPS.
40:08 Traditionally, they’re doing a lot better.
40:10 So if we can offer more of those opportunities to some of our
40:13 students in those areas where they aren’t having those needs met,
40:16 it would be awesome.
40:17 All right.
40:18 Thanks.
40:19 Sorry.
40:20 I know I threw a lot of questions at you guys, but it’s
40:22 important.
40:22 And I love that we’re being transparent and putting it out there
40:25 because it’s the first step.
40:27 I wanted to piggyback off something that you said.
40:30 We are – we’re not just looking at the discipline data for
40:34 students with disabilities.
40:36 We’re also looking at it all students because we want to look at
40:39 all the subgroups, not just students with disabilities.
40:42 So we can put a plan in place on how we can fix it.
40:47 Ms. Campbell.
40:48 I just got a few things.
40:50 Thank you.
40:51 I wanted to just clarify and make sure I understood.
40:54 On the 101 students, the title – the slide says students with
40:59 disabilities with more than 10 days of out of school suspension.
41:03 Is this also specifically our black population in that category?
41:07 Okay.
41:08 I just wanted to make sure.
41:09 That label wasn’t on there.
41:11 Can I get back to you what you said about the IND and make sure
41:14 I understand that rule?
41:15 So it’s a federal rule that less than 1% of our students are
41:20 using the alternative assessment.
41:23 Is that – am I understanding that correct?
41:24 Ms. More than 1%.
41:25 Ms. And then if it’s not – and we are – you said we’re right
41:29 at it.
41:29 Ms. Yeah, I think we’re at like 1.1 in ELA.
41:32 Ms. Okay.
41:33 Ms. Maybe 1.2 in science.
41:34 Ms. Seems like such a scary thing.
41:35 I know it’s red flagging because I want to make sure we’re doing
41:37 it right.
41:37 It seems like a scary thing to put an artificial limit.
41:42 You shall have no more than this many.
41:44 I mean, because we have the students that come to us.
41:47 And we’re not going to kick one student out of the program
41:50 because we got another one in.
41:52 So it kind of bothers me that we have those artificial limits on
41:58 that.
41:58 Ms. But that is federal, right?
41:59 Ms. Okay.
42:00 Ms. The state is monitoring that for all districts.
42:01 Ms. Right.
42:02 I just – related to the ALCs, I just wanted to point out one
42:10 thing.
42:11 Because we can look at it, but the actual population of ALCs is
42:15 not the most accurate way of determining
42:16 that because families have choices.
42:19 It would be more – when you talk about placement and discipline,
42:23 it would be more accurate to
42:24 look at who is getting expelled or getting that in live expulsion.
42:28 Because who’s there is more a determination of who picked ALC
42:32 because they didn’t want to take
42:33 another option of trying to find a private school or doing
42:36 virtual school or just not doing
42:38 anything for the time being.
42:39 So I think we need to back it up before they get there.
42:45 That’s all I have.
42:46 Thank you.
42:48 Ms. Campbell?
42:49 Ms. Right?
42:51 Okay.
42:52 All right.
42:53 Thank you for taking this dive into this.
42:56 I know I was asking questions and I appreciate you looking into
42:59 – because honestly, I think
43:00 an accurate diagnosis is how we figure out how we move forward
43:03 and make things better.
43:04 So I appreciate that.
43:05 I’m still getting hung up and I – again, some of these things
43:09 that are on number four,
43:11 page four of the slides, these are medical diagnosis.
43:14 And that’s why I’m like I’m – I’m concerned.
43:17 I guess I have questions about how we’re able to, at the
43:21 district level, not give a diagnosis,
43:23 but treat as though they – I guess I’m still very gray in that
43:29 area.
43:29 I don’t understand how that happens.
43:30 So potentially some of our staff could go and say, hey, this
43:34 child has ADD.
43:34 That’s a medical diagnosis.
43:35 Is that what you’re saying or no?
43:36 Ms. No, no, no.
43:37 They would bring in a medical diagnosis.
43:39 We do not diagnose.
43:40 Ms. Even teachers, no one does.
43:41 Okay.
43:42 Ms. They would bring that in and then the team would look at
43:46 that and see if it’s impacting
43:47 them in an educational environment.
43:49 Because in some cases, people can have ADD and it’s not
43:53 impacting the educational environment.
43:54 So then you’re going through and you’re looking at all those
43:58 items that we can support
43:59 in that and is it truly something that they need?
44:01 Do they need – it could be a 504 as well and not necessarily an
44:05 IEP of other health impaired.
44:06 Ms. Right.
44:07 Ms. So then we’re not – and that’s where I guess I just keep on
44:10 going back to this going,
44:11 oh my gosh, is that something that we’re doing?
44:12 Ms. We do not.
44:13 Ms. Because some of these things are very much medical diagnosis.
44:16 Some of them – well, actually all of them are really a medical
44:20 diagnosis of some sort.
44:20 So –
44:21 Ms. For the other health impaired.
44:22 Ms. Yeah, absolutely.
44:23 Ms. I want to tell you a story to maybe illustrate how it works.
44:28 And that is that we were dealing with, you know, a child who was
44:33 having struggles in academic
44:34 areas and went through all the testing process and including our
44:38 psychologists who, you know,
44:40 who are psychologists who go through the screeners and all of
44:43 that.
44:43 Ms. And what was chosen to put on the IEP is autism spectrum
44:48 disorder, right?
44:50 Ms. So then you go to the primary care physician who is the one
44:55 who can help with the diagnosis
44:57 and say, hey, do we need to go outside?
44:59 Ms. They say, well, what’s going to be the difference?
45:01 Ms. Because they’re working on the symptoms, whether it’s ASD or
45:05 ODD or whatever label they give it.
45:07 What the schools are doing is they’re working on the academic
45:11 symptoms.
45:11 If the child needs more time, the child has comprehension issues,
45:16 or the child needs to work on group speech,
45:19 where they work on the proper responses to social circumstances.
45:24 I can’t remember the technical term for that.
45:26 But, you know, all those things – those are the things.
45:29 There is a label that’s given, but it doesn’t mean – but every
45:34 student who has that label is not getting the same services.
45:36 It just provides an umbrella, but a parent can go outside of
45:42 that and go get a diagnosis, or they can walk in with one.
45:45 But even if they walk in with one, it’s still going to be the
45:49 same process of the schools and the parents and the teachers,
45:52 you know, and our support staff trying to figure out what are
45:56 the symptoms, right?
45:57 And what are the supports we can give to – for that student.
46:00 Ms. Can a parent refuse to say that they don’t – that they don’t
46:04 accept this as far as they can say no to that?
46:05 Ms. Yeah.
46:06 Ms. Okay. And does that happen on a – do you guys run across
46:09 that or no?
46:09 Ms. It has happened, but I couldn’t tell you.
46:11 I mean, I feel like it’s a rarity, but I probably would be
46:13 speaking out of turn.
46:14 Ms. Okay.
46:15 Ms. Can I give you one more clarifying thought, too?
46:18 So those categories, SLD, ASD, all of that, they all have qualifiers.
46:24 And so a lot of times students will exhibit difficulties in
46:31 school or they’ll be on a certain assessment that they were
46:37 taking, qualifies them for that category versus another category.
46:41 And/or it’s faster to go into one category than it is to go into
46:47 another.
46:48 And sometimes those routes are choosing to give the student the
46:52 services they need faster because the label doesn’t matter
46:55 because the services are reflected on that IEP and that’s really
46:59 what matters.
46:59 Ms. So sometimes you’ll have a kid labeled with a language
47:02 impairment because doing the assessments, the speech language
47:05 pathologist can do that assessment really, really fast, but they
47:08 may have autism spectrum disorder.
47:09 Ms. They may have a medical diagnosis of it at some point,
47:12 whatever, but they choose this path because it’s faster.
47:14 Whatever’s on that IEP really is what matters, the content
47:18 within it.
47:18 And just for your awareness, too, there’s a procedural safeguard
47:21 packet that goes out to parents when they have an initial
47:24 meeting.
47:24 It’s super thick.
47:25 Sometimes we joke about wallpapering your bathroom with it
47:28 because you get it every single meeting legally you’re required
47:31 to get it.
47:31 And the main point of that is to say you as a parent have a
47:34 right to refuse any assessment.
47:36 You have the right to revoke it at any point.
47:38 And, you know, you’re in charge of the whole thing and you have
47:40 to legally be invited to every single meeting about your child
47:42 when it comes to that IEP.
47:43 Yeah.
47:44 It is very confusing, though.
47:45 I’ve always argued being in the ESE world, please change the
47:48 names because it’s confusing for instructional staff, but it’s
47:52 confusing for the parents, quite frankly.
47:53 Yeah.
47:54 Thank you.
47:56 And sorry, I know I had a lot of questions about this one, so I
47:58 really appreciate the detail that you’ve given on this
48:00 presentation.
48:00 There’s a lot of valuable information here that we can look at
48:03 how we do things better moving forward, so I appreciate you.
48:05 Thank you, Ms. Wright.
48:07 I just wanted to say thank you.
48:09 I think we can cut data and look at it different ways, and just
48:13 like Ms. Campbell brought up, there’s issues that may be
48:16 underlying factors as to those reasons, but I wanted to take a
48:20 second to each one of you and say thank you.
48:22 We are significantly upgrading our facilities, trying to get
48:27 individuals the pay that they need so that we can have the
48:31 support inside the classrooms to reduce some of the behaviors.
48:35 The P’s that we have, the students that have that revenue that
48:38 comes in because they’re identified at different levels, getting
48:41 those taken care of.
48:42 You have gone above and beyond, Ms. Dampierre, to create a
48:45 system where we’re not only are we holding students accountable,
48:48 but also getting them the resources and fighting to do that.
48:51 And I wanted to say thank you.
48:52 I think it was Ms. Wright that led the challenge to go out to
48:56 Gardendale.
48:57 Get us out there.
48:58 Was that you?
48:59 Ms. Jenkins.
49:01 Give Ms. Jenkins the credit for that because we all went out
49:03 there and we saw kind of what you guys have been dealing with,
49:05 right?
49:06 Like, we’re trying to create facilities.
49:08 We’re trying to do all that stuff.
49:09 We’re trying to get the staff.
49:11 We’re trying to do – and you’re doing it at warp speed.
49:13 So I wanted to take a second and say thank you.
49:15 I want to say thank you for all of your work.
49:17 Thank you for the hard work that you guys have been doing.
49:20 You know, we can look at some of those things, which is
49:23 absolutely we need to look at those because we don’t want to
49:25 ever have biases.
49:26 But at the same time, I think that I just want to take a second
49:29 and say thank you because I’m really proud of the way Dr. Rendell’s
49:32 taken the reins and started getting moving in this direction.
49:34 And I’m really proud that Ms. Jenkins actually brought that up
49:37 to make us go to it.
49:37 So I just want to take a second.
49:39 That’s all.
49:40 You guys have anything you want to say as a closing argument?
49:42 No, thank you very much for the opportunity to kind of bring it
49:47 back forward.
49:47 So thank you.
49:48 Dr. Rendell, you feel like you got what Ms. Jenkins was
49:51 requesting and everybody else?
49:52 Yeah, I do want to make a couple of comments.
49:54 When I first saw the data that they were presenting, one of the
49:58 things that stood out to me was the fact that this same group of
50:03 kids is facing significant challenges early on in their
50:06 educational career.
50:07 And we can put interventions in place and we can train our staff
50:13 in the upper grades to how to react.
50:16 But an investment in these children at an early age would really
50:21 pay big dividends.
50:22 So when we’re talking about priorities and stuff like that, this
50:27 is an area that if we invest early in primary education, it’s
50:31 going to help us in these things that sometimes we don’t think
50:34 investing in that time of a student’s life is going to.
50:38 But these numbers would be different if we could get to them
50:42 earlier.
50:42 Right.
50:43 So, you know, when we say, how are we going to try and fix this
50:46 or address this?
50:46 One of the things is, you know, attacking, you know, putting
50:50 more resources at the early years, you know, because it was kind
50:53 of like, I don’t know if it’s the chicken or the egg, like what
50:56 happens first?
50:56 But obviously, if they were more successful, as Dr. Bias
51:00 mentioned, by third grade, then they’re going to be more
51:03 successful later on.
51:04 So that’s what when I looked at all the data, I know what we’re
51:07 doing, trying to help our teachers have tools in a toolkit and
51:09 all that kind of thing.
51:10 But if we could do more early on, that would that’ll pay
51:13 dividends.
51:14 So when we get into the spring and we’re talking about
51:16 priorities for next year and stuff like that, that’s, you know,
51:19 just remember that when we.
51:20 And I think I think also utilizing the supports of many of the
51:24 resources inside the community the correct way, whereas a lot of
51:27 them have been out there willing to help, but not aligned
51:31 correctly, not all rowing in the same direction.
51:33 I look forward to seeing that Dr. Rendell and we had spoken
51:36 about this on the off site and stuff like that.
51:38 So I look forward to that leadership.
51:40 And I think we can all rally around that flag and get and go.
51:43 So with that, I want to say thank you.
51:45 Thank you.
51:46 Can I just second and third what Dr. Rendell just said?
51:50 Okay.
51:51 Thank you.
51:52 Like there’s so many other little things that when that day
51:55 comes, we should all throw our oars in and go.
51:57 Yeah.
51:58 I mean, and it never mind.
51:59 It’s the right thing to do.
52:00 And we all have a heart and we want to do the right thing.
52:02 It’s also the fiscally responsible thing to do because it
52:06 actually ends up costing less money in the long run when you
52:08 invest early.
52:09 So it’s absolutely the right choice.
52:11 All right.
52:12 So with that, nobody else has any closing arguments or anything.
52:16 We’re good to go.
52:17 The legal team of Dampere and Bias are good to go.
52:24 Statements, whatever you want to say.
52:26 All right.
52:27 Next board policy is 2520 selection and adoption of the
52:30 instructional materials.
52:31 Does any board member wish to open the conversation to this?
52:34 Anybody wish to have conversations wrapped around it?
52:37 Yeah.
52:38 I figure we’re all going to kind of say something.
52:40 I’m waiting for.
52:42 Oh, look who it is.
52:44 Do you want to start before we start with our love to start?
52:47 Let her start.
52:48 All right.
52:49 Just pull it towards you.
52:50 Just tap on it.
52:50 Pull the little button.
52:51 There’s a button.
52:52 Okay.
52:53 Got it.
52:54 You can pull the whole button.
52:55 Maybe that’ll be the toughest thing that I do all day.
52:56 I put it on top of my book all the time.
52:57 Just put it on top of your book.
52:58 But you can put it on your book like this.
52:59 She had it right.
53:00 You can go like this.
53:01 All right.
53:02 You can do stuff.
53:03 I’ll break out in song.
53:04 Is this working though?
53:05 Because I do have it on and I don’t.
53:06 I just switch.
53:07 I’ll be glad to give you mine.
53:09 All right.
53:14 You can do stuff.
53:15 I’ll break out in song.
53:16 Is this working though?
53:17 Because I do have it on and I don’t.
53:19 I just switch.
53:20 I’ll be glad to give you mine.
53:28 Okay.
53:29 How’s this going?
53:32 Now it’s operator error.
53:34 This can’t be.
53:39 Third time won’t be the term.
53:48 This one.
53:49 If you hit.
53:50 This one’s not working.
53:51 Like this?
53:52 Mine’s not working.
53:53 That one’s not on at all.
53:55 None of them are working.
53:59 No.
54:00 Yours is just half the clock.
54:02 Yeah.
54:03 I just heard it.
54:04 Are you sure?
54:05 Yeah.
54:06 Mic check one, two.
54:07 Oh yeah.
54:08 We don’t have.
54:09 None of them are working.
54:10 Yeah.
54:11 We can’t operate microphones.
54:13 They’re all working.
54:14 They are?
54:15 They’re all working.
54:16 They are?
54:17 They’re all working.
54:18 Oh, okay.
54:19 Thank you.
54:20 Just not over the speakers in here.
54:21 It’s definitely working.
54:22 You’re right.
54:23 This doesn’t work.
54:24 As long as it’s working in there, we’re okay.
54:29 If it’s working in there, great.
54:30 Here we go.
54:31 I’ll talk loud for you guys.
54:32 And he says the microphone’s working.
54:33 This is not working out here.
54:34 Okay.
54:35 So we’ll start with 2520.
54:38 That’s awesome.
54:39 And basically just to overview the more minor changes, I guess.
54:45 And by minor, I don’t mean that they’re insignificant, but just
54:49 things that were just for clarification.
54:51 You’ll see items as clarifying that library collections or book
54:57 collections, that does include classroom libraries.
54:59 I think when this language came out, because I know you revised
55:02 these policies in April of ‘23.
55:04 But since then, the state was able to clarify that that includes
55:09 classroom libraries.
55:10 So you’ll find that change in here.
55:12 This also speaks to posting on the website so that parents have
55:19 access to those for elementary instructional materials.
55:22 But then any reading lists or library collections that parents
55:27 would have access to.
55:29 This also speaks to adding the language that aligns with 1069
55:35 that speaks to what the objection process is.
55:38 So I think when you’re thinking around 2520 with selection and
55:43 adoption, we know that we have our process already as far as our
55:48 adoption of where I can contest through that adoption process.
55:51 But now this will bring on a parent can also limit access.
55:56 So as a parent, I have a form that I can complete that says, I
56:00 don’t want my child reading this text.
56:04 Or I can limit access to books without saying, I want the I’m
56:08 objecting those materials to my school library.
56:11 So there’s a limited access.
56:13 And then we have the full blown objection process that we can
56:17 get into.
56:18 And that is the process where a parent or a resident then would
56:23 object to materials thinking around what why I might object an
56:27 instructional material or a book.
56:30 And sometimes they’re one in the same, but they’re not always.
56:33 But I have to say I feel that there is pornographic content.
56:37 I may not think it is suited for the age group or the grade
56:41 level of the student.
56:42 So those are really aligning with that language of these are
56:46 reasons I might object.
56:48 I want to clarify when we talk about instructional material
56:53 versus books being on a reading list or in a classroom library
56:57 or in a media center.
56:57 The reason I say sometimes they’re one in the same if I’m
57:02 teaching and I say, OK, while I’m working with this, these
57:05 students, Mrs. Jenkins, I want you to go select a book off of.
57:09 I’m telling you, you’re going to go get a book off that library,
57:13 classroom library shelf, and you will be reading this.
57:17 Then it kind of starts bleeding into instructional materials
57:21 because I’m saying you will pick one of these books.
57:23 Another time that instructional materials can look like books,
57:29 but they’re really part of an instructional material program is
57:33 in some of our early grades.
57:35 You may have a reading program that we adopt as a package, but
57:40 it comes with leveled readers or it comes with small group
57:45 readers that help students build background knowledge around a
57:48 topic.
57:48 So the little book is not necessarily now the same as that
57:52 classroom library.
57:53 It’s part of our instructional materials.
57:56 When we adopt benchmark advance teachers got books that will
58:00 help support instruction.
58:02 So those are instructional materials.
58:05 The reason when we talk about the objection process that parents
58:09 or residents have the right to.
58:11 It depends on is it a state adopted material that we’ve adopted
58:17 about who is doing that process.
58:20 So what we have we’re presenting today in 2520 is a limited
58:26 access form and that would go to the school.
58:29 And so then as the school they would say, okay, is this limited
58:34 access to a type of book that would go to my media specialist
58:38 and then our media specialist code that as this child has
58:42 limited access towards this.
58:43 It could also be we have in some cases parents say there is a
58:50 poem in the book that my child is reading.
58:54 I want my child to still work around that standard.
58:57 So we have to instruct around that benchmark or standard, but
59:01 they’re just excusing themselves from that poem.
59:03 But they’re not saying I want it out of all books there that’s
59:07 just parent choice for them.
59:09 So you’ll see those are the kind of the highlights of the
59:13 overview.
59:13 What I want to bring your attention to 2520.
59:16 That is a change that you may see in 2521 is our old form for
59:21 reconsideration of materials really fits with 2521 better.
59:27 So you won’t find it in 2520 because we’ve revised it and put it
59:33 into 2521.
59:34 The form you will see with 2520 is that limited access form.
59:40 I kept, or I being the we, the whole team, currently in what we’re
59:47 putting in front of you today,
59:48 we kept the procedures for objection in both 2520, but you will
59:54 find them duplicated in 2521.
59:56 And so that is past practice in Brevard.
59:59 When you look at this policy that’s come before you for revisions
1:00:04 each time that has stayed in both 2520 and 2521.
1:00:08 So I want to make sure that that works for the board moving
1:00:12 forward to maintain that.
1:00:14 So we revised it to align with the new language, but that it is
1:00:19 in both policies.
1:00:20 That was actually my question because before it was in 2521 and
1:00:26 then now I’m seeing it in both and I was trying to figure out
1:00:29 why.
1:00:29 There’s a lot of crossover obviously.
1:00:31 There’s a lot.
1:00:32 The new world’s initiative is reading initiative is in both.
1:00:35 But I mean as long as we’re always, anytime you make tweaks we
1:00:39 keep them together and we always make the change.
1:00:41 But I was curious because in the past there was listed more in
1:00:50 the current version of, there was the, for the state adopted
1:00:55 textbooks, it was different.
1:00:56 And I didn’t see, some of that seemed like got taken out.
1:01:00 Is that because of the, some of it is a reflection of, so what
1:01:06 you will find as far as that adoption process is that 20 day
1:01:10 hearing window.
1:01:11 We recommend materials that goes out 20 days before public
1:01:14 hearing.
1:01:14 And then after that we have that 30 day where people can contest
1:01:19 at that point.
1:01:20 So those processes are still in general.
1:01:24 Gotcha.
1:01:25 No, I, I thank you.
1:01:27 Cause that, that was the question I had had was why we’re doing
1:01:30 it in both.
1:01:30 I, I noticed that this was in both of these for the Neola
1:01:34 recommendation, but both of them, when they get to the end, they
1:01:38 have that section on the new world’s reading initiative.
1:01:39 They have that last paragraph that talks about promotion of
1:01:42 third graders.
1:01:42 That doesn’t have anything to do with anything in the policy.
1:01:46 And I actually thought firstly, Oh, that looks like a typo.
1:01:49 And then I went, Nope, Neola did it too.
1:01:51 Is that, what is the point of that?
1:01:53 I believe that it, it, it, you know, 1069 carries so much.
1:01:57 Um, but one of the things that it, that that section does add is
1:02:02 actually pre K.
1:02:03 So in the past, the new worlds was K five.
1:02:06 And so it includes that pre K, but I think it also want, I
1:02:09 believe it is one more opportunity to say that with this new
1:02:15 language around that third grade promotion, they’re wanting it
1:02:19 to be that it’s not a, uh, one high stakes test determines that
1:02:23 for students.
1:02:23 And so I felt like that was in there just, and we do have, uh,
1:02:27 even in our, uh, proposed student progression plan, we had those
1:02:31 other good cause exemptions of other pathways where students can
1:02:34 get to fourth grade.
1:02:35 I felt like that was, um, another way to articulate that.
1:02:39 Yes, you may, uh, score in the level one range on that PM three.
1:02:44 Um, but that there are other pathways to get to get to promotion,
1:02:49 um, or a good cause exemption.
1:02:51 I think it was just another way to just solidify, you know, of
1:02:55 course we want all students reading on grade level by third
1:02:58 grade, but that one, one assessment would not determine that.
1:03:01 Right.
1:03:02 Still doesn’t seem to fit the new world’s reading initiative,
1:03:05 but I’ll, I’ll take their, I’ll take their word for it.
1:03:09 Anybody else?
1:03:10 I, I had one clarifying question that I just, I’m hoping Paul
1:03:13 can possibly, cause I’ve heard mixed things in the community.
1:03:16 Um, on page 29 of this under section letter N, it looks like you’re
1:03:23 citing it straight away.
1:03:24 straight from statute right here,
1:03:26 where it’s talking about the parents having the right
1:03:27 to read the passages from the material
1:03:29 that’s subject to the objection.
1:03:32 There was some misconception that something had to already be
1:03:37 in the objection process in order for if that happens.
1:03:41 So can you, Claire, I mean, this to me says if it happens,
1:03:44 even whether or not that material has been objected,
1:03:47 formally gone through that process,
1:03:50 it’s still, if it’s stopped, it’s pulled.
1:03:53 Is that correct?
1:03:54 - So we were just talking about that earlier
1:03:57 because within, it does speak to parent, first of all.
1:04:00 So that’s why I’m glad you brought this up
1:04:02 ‘cause it’s a parent up here.
1:04:04 The other language always speaks to parent or resident.
1:04:06 So this is parent.
1:04:07 And then Mr. Gibbs, it is my understanding
1:04:11 that your recommendation is that because it says
1:04:13 from any material that is subject to an objection,
1:04:16 so we were under the understanding
1:04:19 that that meant a prior objection.
1:04:22 - Mr. Gibbs, are you still saying that?
1:04:26 - Yeah, that’s how I’ve advised everybody so far.
1:04:28 - Have you consulted with other attorneys around the state?
1:04:32 Because I’m hearing mixed things on this.
1:04:34 So they’re saying, no, it doesn’t have to be
1:04:36 in a formal objection process.
1:04:37 If anybody gets up there, a parent gets there and reads it,
1:04:39 and it’s not been objected, that book still would be pulled
1:04:43 if somebody stops them immediately, and so.
1:04:45 - Well, there’s different interpretations.
1:04:47 When you talk to different attorneys,
1:04:49 there’s a myriad of interpretations.
1:04:52 Some are saying you can still apply your decorum right
1:04:57 in rules, and if they violate it by reading,
1:05:01 it doesn’t have to be pulled because your policy rules apply.
1:05:04 So I’m taking statutory language over all others,
1:05:09 and the plain meaning to me is that if there’s an objection
1:05:12 that’s been filed, now if they get up and say,
1:05:13 “I’m objecting to this,” and when you read the DOE rules
1:05:18 on appeals, the hearing officer is only supposed
1:05:23 to be evaluating whether we followed our processes.
1:05:26 So if that’s what the appeal is, and our process is you need
1:05:31 to file this form objecting to it, and the DOE now has also
1:05:36 issued
1:05:36 a form for objecting to materials, that’s my interpretation,
1:05:41 is if they’ve objected to it, and if they come to the meeting,
1:05:44 I have this form to file, who do I give it to,
1:05:47 and I’m going to read this stuff, it could be an objection
1:05:50 right then and right there.
1:05:53 But I think they need to file an objection
1:05:55 based on the plain language.
1:05:57 - Okay.
1:05:58 So this broadens it from what we talked about a little bit more
1:06:05 than what we talked about before.
1:06:06 - In what way?
1:06:08 - In that, I think that’s where Ms. Wright’s getting into.
1:06:11 It doesn’t have to be one, before we’re talking about one
1:06:13 that’s in the formal process.
1:06:16 - Well, if they bring their form that night,
1:06:18 they’re putting it in the pipeline, so.
1:06:20 - But it still would be, we should be able to have the right
1:06:24 to verify that it’s even a book that we have, or that it’s–
1:06:28 - There’s nothing that says that we get to check if it’s a book.
1:06:32 Now, that’s an easy answer, is we don’t have that book
1:06:36 in our libraries, if they’re there, but.
1:06:39 - I’m just saying, somebody could get up there and start reading
1:06:42 from Fifty Shades of Grey, which we’ve never, and will never,
1:06:44 have in our libraries, hopefully.
1:06:46 But, you know, we don’t have to let them read from Fifty Shades
1:06:48 of Grey,
1:06:49 just ‘cause they choose to come and do that.
1:06:51 You might, see where I’m going?
1:06:52 - Huh? I get it.
1:06:53 - Well, I mean, this is– - Hang on, Mr. Trent, Mr. Trent, can
1:06:55 you–
1:06:55 - Sorry. - Go ahead.
1:06:57 - So, whoever can answer this question,
1:06:59 maybe it’s you, Ms. Harris.
1:07:01 What material is subject for an objection?
1:07:07 - I’m hoping you’re saying materials that we have in our school.
1:07:16 - Correct.
1:07:17 - ‘Cause a parent is not gonna come, or citizen, and ask,
1:07:21 have an objection to material that’s not in our school.
1:07:23 - Something we don’t have.
1:07:24 - So, I read that as material that is subject to an objection.
1:07:29 It’s not subject to an objection if we don’t have it.
1:07:32 So, any material that we have is subject to an objection.
1:07:36 It doesn’t mean in the objection process, in my eyes.
1:07:41 - All right.
1:07:44 - I think what, and I might be misinterpreting
1:07:47 what you’re getting at, Mr. Trent,
1:07:48 but I think what Ms. Campbell is trying to say is,
1:07:51 she is concerned about people coming out there,
1:07:54 presenting it as if it is something that’s in our schools,
1:07:57 and getting away with reading it aloud,
1:07:59 when, as the board, we have the authority
1:08:01 to stop anything that is obscene.
1:08:03 - And we should.
1:08:04 So, I think that’s Ms. Campbell’s concern.
1:08:07 - I mean, we could always stop it.
1:08:08 - How do we monitor whether or not it’s appropriate
1:08:11 to stop somebody?
1:08:12 It makes it difficult.
1:08:14 - And yeah, I would agree.
1:08:15 If it’s not in our school system,
1:08:18 then there’s nothing for us to do.
1:08:21 There’s not even a reason to have a hearing on it.
1:08:23 The question is can, if you don’t have it readily available
1:08:27 to you to verify that, and it’s public comment,
1:08:30 you’re not gonna say, all right, give us 10 minutes
1:08:32 to go verify.
1:08:33 - No, that would be after the fact.
1:08:34 I’m assuming the chair would not want inappropriate language
1:08:38 if it’s in our school or if it’s not.
1:08:41 And we can always verify after the fact that, oh yeah,
1:08:43 you know this was– - Yeah, I would agree,
1:08:45 but for public comment purposes,
1:08:47 we’re not gonna be able to sit up there–
1:08:48 - No. - And search every book
1:08:50 that someone may get up and read.
1:08:51 - Not in real time.
1:08:53 - So I think, and how this could play out is,
1:08:55 obviously I think what you are discussing
1:08:57 are the same things we’ve been discussing.
1:08:59 If a parent comes up and is reading anything
1:09:02 that is filled with profanity, then as a board,
1:09:06 you make that decision to turn the mic off or stop.
1:09:11 It then becomes, if it’s in our collection,
1:09:15 or does it get removed?
1:09:18 So I think two steps of your point is,
1:09:20 if they’re up here just speaking,
1:09:22 then you serve as board members taking steps
1:09:25 to reduce whatever they’re saying
1:09:29 that is potentially offensive.
1:09:31 The next step is, is when does the book get removed?
1:09:35 If they are then asked to stop reading aloud.
1:09:38 And I think that was the conversation.
1:09:40 And so with Mr. Gibbs recommendation is,
1:09:43 it would need to be in the process of,
1:09:45 it has been objected.
1:09:47 - I have to vehemently, I disagree with that.
1:09:51 This says right here, if they read passages
1:09:53 from any material that is subject to an objection,
1:09:57 every material is subject to an objection.
1:10:01 It doesn’t say for anybody that,
1:10:03 for material that’s in the process of an objection.
1:10:06 It says for anything, any material that’s subject to an
1:10:10 objection.
1:10:10 So I, that’s where I’m like,
1:10:11 I just don’t think I,
1:10:14 I’m concerned that we’re gonna be violating the law if we.
1:10:17 - We’ve had these exact same conversations,
1:10:20 these exact conversations of clarity around.
1:10:23 - Is it possible to get clarity
1:10:24 from the DOE’s attorney and ask them
1:10:26 what their interpretation of that would be, Mr. Gibbs?
1:10:29 - They refer you back to your own counsel.
1:10:33 That’s all they do.
1:10:34 - That’s right, this is, I hear you on that,
1:10:37 but like that’s the point of these intentionally broad laws
1:10:39 is because they wanna pass the buck down
1:10:41 to the school district to make those decisions
1:10:43 and those very restrictive decisions
1:10:45 so that they can’t get blamed for it.
1:10:48 And the way I read it is that someone has access to read it,
1:10:52 not to come to a podium and read it out loud, right?
1:10:55 So that’s the problem with these broad laws
1:10:57 is they’re gonna get interpreted 67 different ways
1:11:00 across 67 different counties.
1:11:02 And it puts us in a bind.
1:11:04 I have a question though about the parent thing.
1:11:07 Do we have a right to verify that?
1:11:11 Like to access their information
1:11:13 and verify that they have a student?
1:11:15 Because we don’t really technically,
1:11:17 especially as board members,
1:11:18 we have no right to student information just willy nilly.
1:11:22 I don’t have a right to look up a kid
1:11:23 just because I’m a board member.
1:11:25 So does someone have the authority to do that,
1:11:28 to verify that?
1:11:30 And then my other question is,
1:11:31 what if they come in and fill out the form anonymously?
1:11:33 Then is it a non-issue
1:11:34 because they refuse to identify that they’re a parent?
1:11:37 - Once they object to the materials
1:11:39 and complete the ejection form,
1:11:42 then we do have the right to verify.
1:11:44 Even with the state’s template,
1:11:46 it speaks to as someone verifying,
1:11:49 are they a resident, are they a parent?
1:11:51 So we would do that now as for them being just up at a podium,
1:11:55 that would be a gray area.
1:11:59 I mean, it’s very difficult at that point to know,
1:12:02 am I just a community stakeholder
1:12:04 that is coming up reading aloud?
1:12:05 Or at that point we can’t confirm, are they a parent?
1:12:08 - Now I’m confused because,
1:12:10 so not that I want there to be more liberty to ban things,
1:12:14 but now I’m a little confused
1:12:16 because when we were talking about it last time,
1:12:19 it wasn’t that the person who was reading it
1:12:21 had to be the objector.
1:12:23 So is that not the thing anymore?
1:12:26 Like I thought it had to be something that was objected to
1:12:29 and then anyone can read it,
1:12:30 it gets stopped and then it goes away.
1:12:32 Can you clarify that for me, Mr. Gibbs?
1:12:34 - I’d have to double check the language in the statute
1:12:36 versus what’s here.
1:12:38 - Okay, ‘cause then they wouldn’t,
1:12:39 so my question, the reason I’m saying that
1:12:41 is ‘cause then they wouldn’t necessarily be filling out
1:12:42 a form potentially.
1:12:44 - So one, and I don’t ever wanna step into your position,
1:12:48 but one point I would like to make for Ann
1:12:51 is the whole point of this section is to say
1:12:54 that if a parent comes up and reads material
1:12:57 that is pornographic and is silenced,
1:13:02 that the next steps could be,
1:13:04 it says the district shall discontinue use of the material.
1:13:07 So if I come up, to use the example of Fifty Shades of Grey,
1:13:11 if I come up and I’m reading that,
1:13:13 you would use your process to have me stop reading that aloud.
1:13:18 However, the next steps, this language is guiding the district
1:13:22 on their next steps of this material.
1:13:24 So it says the district shall discontinue use of the material.
1:13:27 So that’s the emphasis here is what would our steps be based on?
1:13:33 And so we can get clarification for the,
1:13:37 are they a current objector or are they objecting that day?
1:13:41 Have they filled a form or not?
1:13:43 But then our next steps in that process is that if it is
1:13:47 objective material
1:13:48 or they have filled out the form, we work the process to
1:13:51 discontinue use.
1:13:53 And there’s a million things that we can stop the meeting or
1:13:56 stop somebody from speaking to.
1:13:58 Those are all different combinations.
1:14:00 This is just saying that if these sequence happens, this is what’s
1:14:03 going to,
1:14:04 that will be the outcome.
1:14:05 I think if I could ask, I think Ms. Wright was asking if we
1:14:08 could ask the DOE,
1:14:09 even if they do turn around, at least in the event that you want
1:14:13 to ask the DOE
1:14:14 for clarification, that way you have that completed.
1:14:17 I would, I would be willing to do that if you would like,
1:14:20 I would like to ask the DOE attorney to define that, if that’s
1:14:23 your question,
1:14:24 and then have them turn around and tell us just like if Ms.
1:14:26 Jenkins is correct,
1:14:28 that they want to push it back to us because I’ve heard both
1:14:30 sides of it.
1:14:30 I, I guess what I’m at is I would, I, it’s great to have it from
1:14:35 the DOE.
1:14:35 I think the board’s capable of making this decision right now.
1:14:37 And I think we all should just say, are we, do we want to demand
1:14:41 that it be already
1:14:43 in the objection process in order for this to uphold basically?
1:14:47 For me, no.
1:14:48 This to me is very clear because all material is subject to an
1:14:52 objection.
1:14:52 So for me, I, I think that that is weeding, getting us in the
1:14:58 weeds on.
1:14:58 Yeah, I don’t want to get into the fine details.
1:15:01 I’m, I’m just going back and looking at, I thought I was
1:15:04 thinking that the language
1:15:05 came out of the state board rule, but it comes straight out of
1:15:07 the statute.
1:15:07 Yeah.
1:15:08 And it does say that it’s subject to an objection.
1:15:10 I don’t know what materials we have that aren’t subject to an
1:15:13 objection.
1:15:14 There’s nothing.
1:15:15 Unless it’s like, you know, whatever, I don’t know, you know,
1:15:18 signs in the cafeteria.
1:15:20 But yeah, let me just plain language, that is what it says.
1:15:26 So, and if our, there’s nothing wrong with our policy,
1:15:28 because our policy says exactly what the statute says.
1:15:31 Yes.
1:15:32 And I appreciate that all these things you put in here, except
1:15:34 for our specific, Brevard specific
1:15:37 unique committee.
1:15:38 Yes.
1:15:39 Um, so I’m good with it the way that it is.
1:15:43 Yeah.
1:15:44 We don’t, it doesn’t have to be on the list.
1:15:46 Um, all right.
1:15:47 Any other top, anybody else want to speak?
1:15:49 Okay.
1:15:50 And then she said it, I said it, you said it, that’s it.
1:15:55 Mr. Chair, if I might, um, I can reach out to the fads attorney
1:15:59 just to see what their interpretation
1:16:00 is of subject to objection means has to be under subjection at
1:16:07 the, uh, objection at the time
1:16:08 or just anything that is could potentially be, yeah, I think, I
1:16:12 think a way to do that
1:16:13 is, is to ask them that if we moved forward with it, not being
1:16:17 on the objection list, if
1:16:19 there’s any kind of like legal recourse from that, if not, then
1:16:22 we’re willing to just move
1:16:23 forward with that.
1:16:24 Right.
1:16:25 Well, I, there, there really is no other length.
1:16:27 I mean, this is the language straight out of statute.
1:16:29 So it’s really just asking for his or her interpretation of
1:16:32 statute, you know, Paul’s
1:16:33 given his, and I’ll reach out to the fads attorney while I’ll
1:16:37 reach out to the DOE and see if
1:16:38 they give us any guidance.
1:16:39 And if they give us, you know, the guy and says, Mrs. Jenkins
1:16:42 suggested, talk to your legal
1:16:45 counsel, then we’ll know that’s their answer.
1:16:47 Yep.
1:16:48 All right.
1:16:49 In writing.
1:16:50 I can do that.
1:16:51 Yeah.
1:16:52 So I can ask, I can ask in writing.
1:16:54 Right.
1:16:55 They may not respond.
1:16:56 Yeah.
1:16:57 I don’t know if he’s going to do that.
1:16:58 Yeah.
1:16:59 I know.
1:17:00 All right.
1:17:01 You guys okay?
1:17:02 I was just having a series of questions.
1:17:03 Thank you.
1:17:04 So we’ll keep the language of the policy and then we’ll.
1:17:05 Yeah.
1:17:06 We’ll get some answers.
1:17:07 All right.
1:17:08 So I have a couple of questions, if that’s okay.
1:17:11 Page 27.
1:17:12 Item number one.
1:17:13 Let me move back to it because I was moving through here.
1:17:17 Yep.
1:17:18 Absolutely.
1:17:19 It states as a district library media content specialist or designee
1:17:25 who shall serve as the
1:17:26 non-voting committee chair.
1:17:28 So we have a total of, let me just try to get this straight.
1:17:31 Six members on this, five school board members, and then one of
1:17:36 this media content specialist,
1:17:38 or can you kind of give an overview of which other members are
1:17:41 on this committee?
1:17:42 Well, there is also new language that speaks to at least one
1:17:46 committee member.
1:17:47 And this is why it could change the name or change the number.
1:17:51 One member must be a parent or legal guardian of students who
1:17:54 will have access.
1:17:55 So if the board selected representatives meet that, then you
1:18:00 have just your five plus your
1:18:02 content specialists that’s facilitating.
1:18:05 However, if your board member representatives are not a parent
1:18:09 that would have access or be
1:18:11 impacted by that material, you could have a situation where we’re
1:18:15 identifying another member.
1:18:16 And so here’s where, is that by law that the designee has to be
1:18:23 the voting, the non-voting, the chairperson?
1:18:26 Or is that something we put in?
1:18:27 And I have a question.
1:18:28 That is just Brevard.
1:18:30 And the reason for that is, and you just played into the
1:18:33 scenario that I was looking at.
1:18:34 If you have two and two, or you have three and three voting to
1:18:38 split one, right?
1:18:39 So you have five committee or six committee members.
1:18:41 Normally, in a small vote, in a small board, the chair’s vote
1:18:45 would carry the tiebreaker.
1:18:47 But being the fact that the chair isn’t a tie, isn’t a voting
1:18:51 member, you could have a one
1:18:53 split, three-three, and then what do we do?
1:18:56 So it’s not defined in there.
1:18:58 So what I would say is, does that person have to be the non-voting
1:19:02 chairperson, or could our
1:19:04 committee vote to have a chair?
1:19:06 And then if our committee votes to have a chair, then you have
1:19:10 that scenario taken care
1:19:11 of.
1:19:12 That’s what I was looking at when I was reading the policy.
1:19:13 And I think that when the media content specialist is, and I
1:19:18 have the two of them here, is they
1:19:21 are working directly with our media specialists and involved in
1:19:24 the selection, and so taking
1:19:25 them out of that, I think by having a chair, you know, even
1:19:29 amongst your committee, or you
1:19:31 do see that there is that we can add additional members if need
1:19:36 be to.
1:19:37 I think I’m not, I’m not concerned, yeah, the committees, but I’m
1:19:41 not so concerned about
1:19:42 what I’m looking for is a procedural tie that’s going to create
1:19:46 a situation.
1:19:46 And this is something that we may see, it’s pretty, you know
1:19:50 what I mean?
1:19:50 I am okay.
1:19:51 I don’t, I don’t know if the, and I’m not trying to take away
1:19:55 the ability of anybody, like this
1:19:57 is just about the procedural piece.
1:19:59 If I’m a non-voting member driving a committee and being the
1:20:03 chairperson, it gets kind of wonky,
1:20:04 right?
1:20:05 Would we want to entertain having maybe in the event that there’s
1:20:11 a tie a chairperson designated,
1:20:12 or would you guys like to move to have a chairperson designated?
1:20:15 Mr. Susan, I’m not sure where the tie would come because we have
1:20:18 five representatives from
1:20:19 each school board if they’re the voting, unless somebody’s
1:20:22 absent.
1:20:22 No, she just laid it out.
1:20:23 If, no, the, what she said was, if one of the five is not a
1:20:28 parent, then we might need
1:20:30 to make some adjustments, we might need to add somebody on there.
1:20:33 In that case, we’d have six, but I don’t think we’re going to
1:20:36 run across that problem right now.
1:20:37 I, I would not necessarily want, I mean, I guess they could pick
1:20:42 amongst themselves, but
1:20:43 to allow one of those equal, to, to try to, it’s a lot of
1:20:46 pressure.
1:20:47 And I, I will tell you for having watched the meetings, that the
1:20:52 non-voting media special,
1:20:53 content specialist chair has done a great job of, and being
1:20:57 supported by, she was supported
1:20:58 by Dr. Sullivan in the previous meetings, she’ll be supported by
1:21:01 Ms. Harris.
1:21:01 You know, if there was, needs to be clarification, they’ve been
1:21:04 supported by Mr. Gibbs, if necessary,
1:21:06 as well.
1:21:07 Um, so I think we have a good policy as written, and that
1:21:11 clarification was just to make sure,
1:21:13 because if we had a bunch of elementary school parents that we’d
1:21:17 selected to be our members,
1:21:18 then we would be having a problem.
1:21:20 So I would, I would, I, I understand your concern, Ms. Campbell,
1:21:25 but if one person doesn’t
1:21:25 show up and you have four, or if you have an extra board person
1:21:29 there, you’re going to have a talk.
1:21:30 And this is, hang on, hang on Ms. Campbell, I listened, and this
1:21:34 is not about, it is not about
1:21:35 the content specialists, God bless your soul for even attempting
1:21:40 to chair it, right?
1:21:40 Um, I, uh, I, I’m just trying to figure out, when those
1:21:44 procedural issues come, instead of having
1:21:46 a train wreck at that situation, what can we do to fix it?
1:21:49 That’s all, since that’s a Brevard one, and I’m okay with it, we’ve
1:21:53 worked well together in the past,
1:21:54 this isn’t anything like that, I’m just trying to figure out,
1:21:56 what do you do if there’s a tie?
1:21:58 I have a suggestion.
1:21:59 And there’s no procedure, hang on Ms. Campbell.
1:22:00 Yeah.
1:22:01 So the thing is, is that, um, I think that in cases, we can
1:22:05 either initiate a chair to be
1:22:06 put in at that time, then vote for that, or designate somebody
1:22:10 that in the event that there’s
1:22:11 a tie, this is something, like, I, I don’t know.
1:22:14 Do you have suggestions?
1:22:15 Yeah, I have a suggestion.
1:22:16 Go ahead.
1:22:17 Because we are making, in this round of revisions, we’re making
1:22:21 the, the committee, um, they’re
1:22:23 giving us a recommendation to the board.
1:22:25 My suggestion would be, in the case of somebody’s absent, and
1:22:28 they have a tie, and it’s two,
1:22:29 two, then we send that information onto the board, and the board’s
1:22:32 making the final decision,
1:22:33 and that’ll be a tough vote, won’t it?
1:22:35 But, um, that’s, that’s my recommendation.
1:22:37 Not that we then, because if we then choose a chairman, you know,
1:22:41 then we’re, we’re, you know,
1:22:43 then it’s kind of awkward.
1:22:44 Listen, that’s, that’s great.
1:22:45 Um, if that’s the way it works, I think that’s a great solution.
1:22:47 I’m okay with that.
1:22:48 We’re ultimately going to make the decision.
1:22:50 Just trying to look at that procedural.
1:22:52 So thank you for that.
1:22:53 Um, the next one is, is under H number two, which I think is
1:22:57 number page 28.
1:22:58 It speaks to the district advisory committee will receive a copy.
1:23:03 And then it says one week per hundred pages within the book.
1:23:08 The district will utilize book.
1:23:10 Are we restricting it saying that we’re going to only stay at
1:23:14 that pace?
1:23:14 Or is this just a suggestion?
1:23:17 This would be a recommendation based on what would be feasibly,
1:23:21 realistic for a person to read within one week as part of this
1:23:25 committee.
1:23:25 But if the committee wishes to move forward at a faster pace or
1:23:30 a slower pace,
1:23:31 they’re not restricted to this.
1:23:32 This is just a mere suggestion is what you’re saying.
1:23:35 It doesn’t have the word suggestion on there.
1:23:38 So if the board would like, you know, we can amend that.
1:23:42 Right now it would be that you’re reading a hundred pages every
1:23:47 week.
1:23:47 And, and, and the reason I ask is, is that how many books do we
1:23:50 have on the list right now?
1:23:51 I understand.
1:23:52 And, and so if we’re held up at a hundred pages, we’ll be doing
1:23:56 this for two years.
1:23:57 And so, you know what I mean?
1:23:59 I was one of my indicators was, is that maybe you put suggestion
1:24:02 because I get it.
1:24:03 Like, listen, we don’t want to work people into the ground.
1:24:06 This is Brevard.
1:24:08 But then again, how are you going to, you have a timeline that
1:24:14 everyone’s on the same pace for.
1:24:15 You know what I’m saying?
1:24:16 So if some people are reading a hundred pages per week and some
1:24:18 people are reading 300 pages per week,
1:24:20 you’re still going to have to go at the slowest pace, which is
1:24:23 the hundred pages.
1:24:23 I think the way to look at it this way is, is that you set a
1:24:26 date for a committee meeting,
1:24:27 and then you have the list of books that you’re going to read
1:24:29 for that committee meeting.
1:24:30 They establish that ahead of time.
1:24:31 Yeah.
1:24:32 And I’m not saying that the hundred pages needs to be the
1:24:34 minimum, maximum or anything like that.
1:24:36 I think that there’s some validity to it, but there’s also some
1:24:40 validity to not sitting in a, for two years in a situation where
1:24:43 we’re reviewing books and stuff like that.
1:24:45 So if the committee wishes to move forward, I didn’t want to
1:24:48 restrict them and handcuff them in order to move quicker is all.
1:24:51 That’s all.
1:24:52 That was my thought.
1:24:53 I think that’s, isn’t that what they’re doing though?
1:24:55 That’s why we came up with this number was so that you can have
1:24:59 the date set in advance so that it won’t go past those dates.
1:25:02 It’s set by how long it takes to reach.
1:25:04 But I think the solution to that, it’s not to make these people
1:25:07 who have full-time jobs and responsibilities make them read
1:25:10 faster.
1:25:10 I think the solution is what we put in last fall, which is
1:25:14 number four now that we can call for additional review
1:25:17 committees.
1:25:18 I know that creates extra work for our media content specialists
1:25:23 because now they’re chairing two committees.
1:25:26 But if we’ve, you know, once we get past this first glut of
1:25:31 reviews, I’m optimistic that it will slow down at some point.
1:25:33 But I would rather than asking these people to go faster, my
1:25:38 suggestion would be that we at least put a second committee in
1:25:41 place to move this first group along and we submit an extra name.
1:25:46 I know you’re going to have to submit a new name because your
1:25:49 person is no longer on there, but.
1:25:50 Michelle Webb.
1:25:51 Yeah.
1:25:52 We’re going to, we need to get a second committee and that’s why
1:25:56 the board a year, more than a year ago said, let’s, let’s add
1:25:59 that item.
1:25:59 So my concern is still there that even if you have two, even if
1:26:02 you have three, you’re still going to be reviewing books for a
1:26:06 year or two years and continue.
1:26:07 Hang on a second.
1:26:08 I wanted to follow up and then I’ll give it to you.
1:26:09 The issue is, is that I’m not saying that they can’t slow down,
1:26:13 speed up.
1:26:14 I just think that putting an arbitrary number on there and
1:26:18 saying you, you have to wait this amount of time inhibits us
1:26:21 from moving quicker if they want to or moving slower.
1:26:24 But you allow the committee to set the dates, to set the times,
1:26:27 to set the books that they want to review.
1:26:29 That’s all.
1:26:30 By, nobody’s telling them you have to read less or more.
1:26:33 It’s just, that’s a, that’s a hard number to stick to.
1:26:37 And some people would argue that people can read faster, people
1:26:40 can read slower, but you let the committee decide not being
1:26:43 restricted.
1:26:43 So Mr. Trent, you had a question?
1:26:44 Uh, just a few things.
1:26:45 So I would like to see a chair voted upon out of the five so
1:26:52 they can also create an agenda of books.
1:26:56 Um, Ms. Campbell, you, you had mentioned if it’s not, if it’s a
1:27:02 tie or if it’s, if it’s three, two or three and the other two
1:27:05 didn’t read a book at that point, it’s a recommendation to the
1:27:07 board.
1:27:07 Anyway, the majority consensus has it, it moves to the board and
1:27:11 we make those decisions.
1:27:12 Because if, if we have to wait for every board member, they’re
1:27:16 going to, potentially someone could slow walk an entire year on
1:27:19 a book or eight, eight weeks when it doesn’t need to be.
1:27:23 I don’t believe, I mean, if that committee says.
1:27:26 Yeah, the committee members don’t have a right to slow it down.
1:27:28 I mean.
1:27:29 Well, it’s a, if we do the suggestion of a hundred pages a week.
1:27:31 Right.
1:27:32 If it’s a 400 page book that.
1:27:33 Minimum of four weeks.
1:27:34 They’ve said the meeting’s in four weeks.
1:27:35 But if, you know, if three out of the five say, look, we can go
1:27:39 through the cupcake Bible today.
1:27:40 I don’t care if anybody’s read it.
1:27:42 We’re, we’re putting it on the list and we’re moving it to a
1:27:45 recommendation to keep it on the shelves.
1:27:46 Um, we should be able to do that.
1:27:48 We don’t need multiple committees in my opinion to, to do that.
1:27:52 Because.
1:27:53 I didn’t make it to the formal review.
1:27:54 Right.
1:27:55 But I’m just, it’s an example.
1:27:56 Right.
1:27:57 We need to, if it is just a recommendation, if it’s a majority,
1:27:59 it moves onto the board and we make those decisions.
1:28:02 I, I, I truly believe that the hundred pages kind of handcuffs
1:28:06 them in the fact that we’re, we’re going faster, slower,
1:28:09 whatever that is.
1:28:10 I think that you have a board.
1:28:11 They can figure out how.
1:28:13 I think that I, to be honest with you, there has been some
1:28:17 concern on both sides that we ban these books or we put them up
1:28:21 for review or whatever it is.
1:28:22 And then they’re out and then we’re not reviewing them quick
1:28:25 enough.
1:28:25 And then the other side saying, you’re not doing them quick
1:28:27 enough and everything else.
1:28:28 And what it comes down to is, is that the other pieces I’ve made
1:28:32 suggestions, let’s just create five committees and get them done.
1:28:34 And then I’ve heard from people saying we’ve, it’s difficult for
1:28:37 us to get five members to step forward and do this because some
1:28:40 people have been personally attacked at their businesses and
1:28:43 works and everything else.
1:28:43 So, so my thing is, is that we can’t expand the number of
1:28:47 committees based upon some of the actions that have been inhibited
1:28:51 by other people in the community.
1:28:53 It may be difficult for us to handcuff ourselves with a hundred
1:28:57 pages is all.
1:28:57 And I’m not saying you have to do this, you have to do that.
1:28:59 I’m just saying that the committee can do that.
1:29:01 Ms. Wright, you had something to say?
1:29:03 No, go ahead.
1:29:05 Can we get a, just a general sense of how long, I know there’s
1:29:10 been some fat ones, but generally.
1:29:12 We’re talking about 300 to 400 page books.
1:29:16 Am I, am I hitting the target there?
1:29:19 Most of it is 600.
1:29:21 Ms. 600, okay.
1:29:23 The three that we just did in June 2nd were three short poetry
1:29:27 books.
1:29:27 And then three, trying to get three in one day took longer than
1:29:31 one book took.
1:29:32 There were 600 plus pages.
1:29:34 Part of that was because of the public comments.
1:29:35 Ms. Public comments.
1:29:36 We have public comments for all of them.
1:29:38 So we took each book very seriously and we went through each
1:29:41 book.
1:29:41 And we went through each book individually because we didn’t
1:29:43 want to make a quick decision on all three books.
1:29:46 They’re written by the same author.
1:29:48 Right.
1:29:49 I’m sorry.
1:29:51 The Wizard of Oz.
1:29:52 I’m in my teacher mode here.
1:29:54 Is this your mic?
1:29:56 So the number of pages is very important too because I, if you’ve
1:30:01 paid attention to the meetings,
1:30:02 you will see that your committee members come very prepared.
1:30:05 They’re not just reading the books.
1:30:07 They are making notes.
1:30:08 They’re doing research on the author perhaps or the topics or
1:30:12 what’s being taught in our schools based on our own school
1:30:15 policies.
1:30:15 So it’s not just a matter of reading a book and saying, okay, we’re
1:30:19 finished.
1:30:19 We’re ready to meet.
1:30:20 So the people you have selected do their due diligence to do
1:30:24 their homework in addition to reading those books.
1:30:26 These are volunteers who are taking their time at the end of
1:30:29 their very busy day to read some of these books they are
1:30:33 interested in.
1:30:33 They don’t want to read, but they’re doing it for the good of
1:30:36 the community and good for our schools.
1:30:37 So I, I think the plan in place is very good.
1:30:40 And I agree with Mr. Susan with some books that are shorter,
1:30:44 especially if we have an elementary book,
1:30:45 we may could make some, you know, understanding changes to those
1:30:50 types of books.
1:30:51 If Dr. Seuss walks in the door and we need to do one of those
1:30:54 books, obviously we would get through some of those books much
1:30:57 quicker.
1:30:57 But just generally speaking, I think the policy we’ve had in
1:31:00 place has been very, very good and has worked well for the
1:31:04 committee members as well.
1:31:05 I think if you get feedback from your people, maybe that would
1:31:09 help you to make those types of decisions.
1:31:12 But we did try to get three short books done in one meeting and
1:31:16 it wasn’t just public comments.
1:31:17 It was just, they really took their time to do the right thing
1:31:20 for our students.
1:31:21 I’m talking about the committee members.
1:31:22 Sure.
1:31:23 Where did the hundred pages come from?
1:31:25 Dr. Sullivan did some homework and some research and then she
1:31:28 developed that.
1:31:29 That was great.
1:31:30 So Dr. Sullivan suggested a hundred.
1:31:32 Correct.
1:31:33 After doing some research, yes.
1:31:35 I guess where I would like to suggest is allowing the committee
1:31:40 to determine their path of speed or slow speed.
1:31:44 Like that, that, you know, instead of us saying, hey, you have a
1:31:48 hundred.
1:31:48 But they do, don’t they?
1:31:49 Because.
1:31:50 I think if you set the date, when Ms. Harris says the date, that
1:31:54 would definitely give them a timeline
1:31:54 of how much time they have to do the research to read the book.
1:31:57 To have time to think through what they’ve just read and those
1:32:00 types of things.
1:32:00 I think that the date of the meetings was important.
1:32:03 Isn’t that set based on the hundred page rule?
1:32:06 So if it’s 600 pages, we do it in six weeks?
1:32:09 Is that what, is that what I’m hearing?
1:32:10 That was probably the guidance based on this language.
1:32:13 So, you know, the sentence before says given adequate time to
1:32:16 read.
1:32:16 So I think that’s how they determined when we were scheduling
1:32:19 out based on the number of the books.
1:32:21 Or number of the pages.
1:32:22 One thing, the meeting that was supposed to be, we stopped
1:32:25 before the June 30th meeting.
1:32:26 But there was supposed to be a meeting.
1:32:27 The next one was going to be in August.
1:32:28 I think they were going to do more than one book because the
1:32:31 boardroom availability.
1:32:32 Mm-hmm.
1:32:33 Because if they, trying to be in here where they can record
1:32:36 easier, right?
1:32:36 You guys were going to do two books in August because it fit the
1:32:39 timeframe.
1:32:39 Correct.
1:32:40 So, you know, just, and just, let’s just be honest.
1:32:42 One of the reasons why it slowed down is because we, we stopped
1:32:45 it as a board for good reason.
1:32:45 Correct.
1:32:46 But we stopped it.
1:32:47 We could have already had another three, four or five books at
1:32:50 this point already gone through
1:32:51 the process.
1:32:52 I am going to say again, I think we need to get the second
1:32:55 committee, sorry.
1:32:55 Nope.
1:32:56 The second committee up and running.
1:32:57 That’s all right.
1:32:58 And move it along so that we can get going forward.
1:33:02 But I, you know, if you’re talking about adding a clause in
1:33:06 there that says,
1:33:07 because I think a hundred pages for people who have full-time
1:33:11 jobs is, is fair.
1:33:12 But if you want to put a clause in this area, you know, unless
1:33:15 the committee unanimously decides to,
1:33:18 you know, shorten the time, whatever, you know, do I have a
1:33:23 problem with that?
1:33:23 I don’t.
1:33:24 But I think we’re, we’re good with a hundred pages.
1:33:26 That is not what’s slowing us down.
1:33:27 Well, may I also, I’m sorry, Mr. Susan, go back to the comment
1:33:31 about the tie.
1:33:32 I will say that the committee tries not to leave any, well, we
1:33:37 didn’t leave anything a tie under old policy.
1:33:40 We would go back and revisit and continue discussions until
1:33:44 there was a unanimous decision.
1:33:46 So that never happened in the past.
1:33:49 Just if that helps clarify that at all.
1:33:52 We had unanimous decisions on books.
1:33:54 She means majority.
1:33:55 I’m sorry, not unanimous.
1:33:56 We had, I’m sorry, majority rule.
1:33:58 I apologize.
1:33:59 That’s correct.
1:34:00 And I appreciate everybody saying that, you know, those, it may,
1:34:04 it may not, and all that other stuff.
1:34:05 I just, what I would say is, is that if we added Ms. Campbell,
1:34:11 not for unanimous, because you can’t get that committee to get
1:34:15 unanimous.
1:34:15 I would say that if the majority wishes to move forward at a
1:34:18 quicker pace or a slower pace, that would be one thing.
1:34:21 So, is there an estimation of how many pages we have total to
1:34:26 review?
1:34:26 Oh, no, sir.
1:34:27 How many books are there currently?
1:34:28 48?
1:34:29 52?
1:34:30 I have to go back and recount.
1:34:31 And what is the average number of pages per book?
1:34:35 I’d say average is about 400, but the ones we’ve been doing have
1:34:38 been more than that.
1:34:39 So, you’ve got 400 times 40, right?
1:34:43 So, it’s 16, what, 1,000?
1:34:46 So, you have 16,000 divided by 365 billion.
1:34:50 Mr. Susan, as you’re going there, it’s been a long time since
1:34:53 the board has, or this committee has met.
1:34:55 Yes.
1:34:56 And I know for a fact that there are people on that board, on
1:35:00 that committee, that have continued to read.
1:35:03 And, you know, they’ve been reading these books.
1:35:06 True, that’s true.
1:35:07 Since they’ve been on there.
1:35:08 They’re ready.
1:35:09 Yes.
1:35:10 Exactly.
1:35:11 So, I mean, I don’t know how it’s set up, but I would really
1:35:13 like to have seen these five members select the chair,
1:35:16 select, let the group put together their agenda on how many
1:35:20 books that they’re ready to get through.
1:35:23 We’ve got 48 books to get through, or somewhere about.
1:35:27 Let them set the pace.
1:35:30 They’re the ones reading.
1:35:31 I know my wife can get through 100 pages in, you know, it seems
1:35:35 like 60 minutes or less.
1:35:37 Let them do that.
1:35:39 And Ms. Harris, you have enough things to think about and to
1:35:43 worry about, but to set an agenda
1:35:44 for the next six months of books being looked at, I really would
1:35:49 like to see this committee
1:35:51 take more ownership of it.
1:35:52 That’s why they put their names in.
1:35:53 They want to do this.
1:35:54 They want to get through those 48 books.
1:35:55 They don’t want it spread out over six or eight months.
1:35:58 And a suggestion of 100 pages a week can just be a suggestion,
1:36:03 but we should not be able to limit it.
1:36:05 Mr. Susan, sir.
1:36:06 A suggestion would be you could leave the 100 pages per week in
1:36:10 there and then just comma or at a pace determined by the
1:36:14 committee.
1:36:14 That’s it.
1:36:15 And then the committee could say we want to move faster, we want
1:36:17 to move slower.
1:36:17 I said a minimum.
1:36:18 I would say 100 pages a week.
1:36:19 Right.
1:36:20 We don’t want it to go slower.
1:36:21 I think it’s wise to set a minimum standard because honestly
1:36:23 they could do the same thing
1:36:24 where they just wait a year to review one book because they went
1:36:27 at a slower pace.
1:36:27 I don’t, I don’t think that this, like you, I’m not objecting to
1:36:31 you putting that in there, but I don’t think that this was
1:36:34 having that happen anyway.
1:36:36 I am going to push back on the comments that we can’t find
1:36:39 people to join the committees.
1:36:41 There’s 600,000 people in Brevard County.
1:36:44 You can find one person who wants to join the committee.
1:36:46 Quite frankly, there’s plenty of them who come to speak here
1:36:49 about the things that they don’t agree with every single board
1:36:53 meeting.
1:36:53 Ask one of them to join the committee.
1:36:54 It’s not going to be that hard for us to find just to start
1:36:57 another committee.
1:36:58 I think that’s important.
1:36:59 I don’t understand this fixation on a chair member from the
1:37:04 committee.
1:37:05 I don’t understand it.
1:37:07 Personally, I just think that the district owns responsibility
1:37:10 of making sure that these are going through the process.
1:37:13 They’re going through the process correctly and we’re keeping
1:37:17 eyes on it.
1:37:17 It’s our responsibility.
1:37:18 So there should be a district member who is incorporated in that
1:37:22 and they don’t have a vote.
1:37:23 So it doesn’t impact the vote at all.
1:37:25 But I think they should be the ones who are having that
1:37:28 conversation and kind of controlling it.
1:37:29 And quite frankly, this is the most contentious thing we can
1:37:32 possibly talk about with the public.
1:37:33 We don’t need five strangers sitting in a room together arguing
1:37:37 with one person who has been voted the chair.
1:37:40 It just doesn’t make any sense.
1:37:42 I think they can get done what we’re saying we want to get done
1:37:47 as far as picking up the pace, which we suggested.
1:37:51 And if we’re going to make changes today, we have to do it today.
1:37:53 Otherwise, we’re backing up this process at least two weeks.
1:37:56 So if we want to add that clause in there, we need to make sure
1:38:00 that Ms. Harris has clear.
1:38:00 If we’re talking about adding a chair, I don’t think that the
1:38:04 chair is going to give us what we want.
1:38:06 If we want the committee to be able to pick up the pace, I think
1:38:09 they will be able to do that with the language that we’ve
1:38:11 suggested we’re adding it without a chair from that.
1:38:14 And I’ll be quite honest, Board, picking a chair is one of the
1:38:17 most political things that we do.
1:38:18 Right.
1:38:19 And I would say that the committee would be very similar.
1:38:22 I think they can get the work done and have the flexibility.
1:38:26 We’ve already talked about what we do with the tie.
1:38:28 So that kind of eliminates the need for a chair outside of the
1:38:32 non-voting chair that’s already listed in the committee.
1:38:36 And I agree with that as well.
1:38:37 As long as they can move forward with anything that evening with
1:38:43 a consensus vote, we need to move on.
1:38:46 I just don’t want to see a chair, nothing, but I don’t, I don’t
1:38:51 want any, I would not like to see anything tabled or, or slow
1:38:56 walked or sped up, you know, in, in the committee, not have the
1:39:00 ability to change that.
1:39:01 So as long as we can do that.
1:39:03 I think Ms. Wright’s comment where you set the, like a hundred
1:39:06 minimum or something like that on the standard, along with
1:39:10 allowing them to have the flexibility to move on their own.
1:39:12 Right.
1:39:13 So your comma with the committee has the flexibility to move at
1:39:17 a faster pace, if so willing.
1:39:19 I’m good with that.
1:39:20 I think that’s good.
1:39:21 I think your Ms. Campbell’s suggestion or wherever it came from
1:39:25 where, um, you know, the chair, you can go three, three, two,
1:39:28 two, bring it to us.
1:39:28 We’ll make the final decision.
1:39:29 That’s totally fine.
1:39:30 Um, and the reason.
1:39:31 Well, if they go three, three, we got a problem cause there’s
1:39:34 only five members.
1:39:34 Well, if they get a, but if they get the extra member, remember
1:39:37 if they get the extra member, because there’s not a parent that’s
1:39:40 inside there and we need to identify that because that’s a whole
1:39:42 nother issue.
1:39:42 Who, who chooses the parent?
1:39:43 And that’s a whole nother one.
1:39:44 Mine has children that are in school.
1:39:45 So, um, high school and elementary.
1:39:47 Good.
1:39:48 There’s other, there’s other things that when you look at it
1:39:51 from a board governance perspective that like, I didn’t bring it
1:39:55 up, but who’s going to chair, who’s going to choose the person
1:39:58 that’s a parent if they do have it like that.
1:40:00 So I think.
1:40:01 So that’s probably something that needs to be done on the
1:40:04 application end of it to just ask them, do you have children
1:40:06 enrolled in school?
1:40:07 Actually, it doesn’t even say enrolled in school.
1:40:09 It just has a parent.
1:40:10 A parent that would have a student with access.
1:40:12 Oh, right.
1:40:13 Yeah.
1:40:14 Oh, okay.
1:40:15 Sorry.
1:40:16 The other part of it says a parent when they’re objecting, which
1:40:18 I’m like, it doesn’t even say a parent of anybody in our schools.
1:40:20 Okay.
1:40:21 So, so maybe just to ask that question on the application or I
1:40:24 guess they’re not really filling an application out, but.
1:40:26 Cause they’re appointed.
1:40:27 They’re appointed by us.
1:40:28 They’re appointed.
1:40:29 So that may be a question when you’re having a conversation
1:40:32 around making your appointments.
1:40:34 We maybe need to change our point.
1:40:36 Our point.
1:40:37 Yeah.
1:40:38 All right.
1:40:39 It’s, I mean.
1:40:40 They don’t have to all be.
1:40:42 Correct.
1:40:43 One of them has to be.
1:40:44 And I guess there’s no way for us to really know that until we
1:40:45 hand them off to, to Ms.
1:40:45 Harris.
1:40:46 And then she says, oh, we have a problem.
1:40:47 Right.
1:40:48 One of them is not a parent.
1:40:49 Or if we have two committees, they just make sure that they.
1:40:51 Nope.
1:40:52 Okay.
1:40:53 Got it.
1:40:54 Mr. Trent, I, everything you just said supports exactly why I
1:40:57 think it should be a district chair,
1:40:59 because then the district is responsible for it not being
1:41:02 manipulated.
1:41:03 The process.
1:41:04 Yeah, no.
1:41:05 I don’t know.
1:41:06 I said before.
1:41:07 I don’t know if you’re calling them in chairs.
1:41:08 No, no.
1:41:09 I just, I just want to say, I agree with you.
1:41:10 But that’s exactly why I agree with you.
1:41:11 Because it can’t be manipulated either way.
1:41:12 We’re done with the chair.
1:41:13 We don’t need to talk about the chair.
1:41:14 Okay.
1:41:15 We have clarify, clarifying language.
1:41:16 That’s a minimum.
1:41:17 Okay, Mr. Susan.
1:41:18 Thank you.
1:41:19 Okay.
1:41:20 The minimum of one week per 100 pages within the book, or at an
1:41:25 increased pace based on the
1:41:25 committee determination.
1:41:26 Right.
1:41:27 That’s it.
1:41:28 That’s good.
1:41:29 There was one other part in here that is, was removed that I
1:41:33 wanted just to clarify how
1:41:34 we’re going to be doing it.
1:41:35 Yeah.
1:41:36 Okay.
1:41:37 I just have a bunch of other things I can go through.
1:41:38 Oh, yeah.
1:41:39 Go for it.
1:41:40 No, you can go.
1:41:41 I mean, if you’ve got one.
1:41:42 It had to do with the order, because it used to, there used to
1:41:45 be a phrase in there that
1:41:45 had to do with the person who submitted the request being able
1:41:48 to pick the order.
1:41:50 I just, which was fine.
1:41:52 I know Dr. Solomon always wanted to make sure that she was
1:41:55 trying to be, she would ask them,
1:41:56 what order do you want?
1:41:57 And it was first come, first serve.
1:41:58 And if they didn’t care, then you guys could order them based on
1:42:02 whatever.
1:42:03 But I mean, is that, how are we going to determine that moving
1:42:07 forward?
1:42:07 Maybe.
1:42:08 At this point, as we’re receiving the objections, because I
1:42:12 think that, you know, once we get the
1:42:14 committee in place, I think we have to go in the order that it
1:42:18 is currently in, because
1:42:19 we have so many books.
1:42:20 Right.
1:42:21 And then once we get, as we start making progress, we’re just
1:42:24 going to add to the next.
1:42:26 To your point, if there are some short books that we can kind of
1:42:30 get off the list, we would
1:42:31 like that discretion to be able to do that.
1:42:33 Right.
1:42:34 No, I agree.
1:42:35 I agree.
1:42:36 Or is there a way to put a caveat in there that if it’s, if it’s
1:42:38 a book that’s used in
1:42:39 curriculum, a lot of AP books, that’s been a big thing that they’ve
1:42:42 said, oh, these,
1:42:42 you know, these books are being challenged and we use them in
1:42:45 our AP curriculum.
1:42:45 Is there a caveat that we can put that that supersedes the other
1:42:49 books?
1:42:49 We won’t need that if they take out the part that they put.
1:42:52 Because if they submit a bunch, then, and they don’t, they’re
1:42:56 not asking, they’re not setting
1:42:58 the order, then the staff’s setting the order.
1:43:00 No, but I’m saying, I think they should be, the order should be
1:43:05 as they come in with the
1:43:07 caveat, if the book is used in one of our courses, such as AP,
1:43:12 that that book would
1:43:13 be then elevated to the top of the list.
1:43:15 Because I hate that those classes are getting messed with based
1:43:18 on what’s happening here.
1:43:19 Yeah, I appreciate that because it interferes with teacher
1:43:22 planning, quite frankly.
1:43:22 It does.
1:43:23 So I would be 100% with that, but if we just, as a suggestion
1:43:27 from the chair to the committee,
1:43:29 hey, this is why I think this book should go up there.
1:43:32 But I truly think the committee should have a consensus, should
1:43:36 vote on that.
1:43:36 They should be in charge then of any changes.
1:43:39 They’re the ones that are voting to keep it or not keep it.
1:43:43 So if you explain it properly.
1:43:46 So we’re okay with the staff.
1:43:48 They’re making a recommendation.
1:43:49 We are voting.
1:43:50 That’s what I mean, to put it, we’re at on the list.
1:43:53 If they want to move it up from 20th to let’s do this now.
1:43:56 I think that’s very, and I, okay, so I, I think you could get
1:44:03 yourself in the weeds there.
1:44:04 Because what happens if it’s just, they just want to move this
1:44:07 book because they just like
1:44:07 this book and this is the one they challenged and they want it
1:44:10 to go to the top of the list.
1:44:10 I think there should be something that’s specific tied to the.
1:44:13 You need three out of five votes.
1:44:14 Well, I know, but.
1:44:15 Versus one.
1:44:16 It could be that way one day.
1:44:18 I think that you should have something.
1:44:19 That’s my personal opinion.
1:44:20 It should be tied towards if this is used in curriculum for
1:44:24 classes that we currently have,
1:44:24 that it, it supersedes the other ones and it’s, it’s done first.
1:44:27 And not curriculum for me being a former instructor, not
1:44:32 curriculum that like I bring this book in
1:44:34 and utilize it.
1:44:35 It would be like part of the syllabus, part of the requirements.
1:44:38 So this is part of a reading list that is part of that course,
1:44:41 not just a, a novel
1:44:44 study that I choose as a teacher for this, but that it’s a
1:44:48 reading list connected to a course.
1:44:49 That in that, because that goes beyond AP, right?
1:44:52 Goes to Cambridge, goes to all of those.
1:44:54 You want to be able to elevate those to be the next level.
1:44:57 So I, that’s where I think I would fall in that line.
1:45:00 Um, if we were to do it, I think that’s a good, good point to
1:45:04 make.
1:45:04 Just for clarification.
1:45:05 The committee doesn’t talk or meet or do anything.
1:45:08 Right.
1:45:09 Until we meet for the time to discuss the book.
1:45:12 I’m not sure what all sunshine laws are.
1:45:14 Um, so, um, Mrs. Harris would be making, um, those decisions.
1:45:19 Um, I’m not saying she couldn’t ask for input.
1:45:22 It makes it easier for you if it’s defined to move like that.
1:45:26 That’s all.
1:45:27 Yes.
1:45:28 And the good, you know, with the new objection form that we’ll
1:45:31 get to at 2521, uh, it does,
1:45:33 you know, that’s where they can dive into some more of that,
1:45:36 that we can make those decisions,
1:45:37 uh, prior to putting it in order on the list.
1:45:39 Yep.
1:45:40 That’s right.
1:45:41 Sounds good to me.
1:45:42 Sounds good.
1:45:43 Um, all right.
1:45:44 With none of that, the next one is K number one.
1:45:47 H I J K, hang on.
1:45:50 What is this?
1:45:51 K L.
1:45:53 What page are you on?
1:45:54 I’m sorry.
1:45:55 Page 29.
1:45:56 K and then it goes to L, right?
1:45:58 Um, so here it says the school board’s decision is final for
1:46:02 five years.
1:46:03 Right.
1:46:04 Where I would like is sometimes I didn’t, I didn’t know if there’s
1:46:08 an opportunity to define
1:46:10 how it comes back because if it just says it’s for five years,
1:46:15 all of a sudden we’re sitting
1:46:16 here and then it pops up again.
1:46:17 We didn’t know about it.
1:46:18 Do we want to put a review of it at that time after the five
1:46:22 years and say, this is something
1:46:24 we would not want to continue?
1:46:25 Or do we want to just let it go for five years?
1:46:28 You see what I mean?
1:46:29 Like, like all of a sudden five years.
1:46:30 If the language were to not change, so in five years, part of
1:46:37 that, the steps media specialists
1:46:39 take in creating their collection is to ensure that it aligns
1:46:43 with the language of the statute.
1:46:45 So again, the, it’s not pornographic, it’s age appropriate, all
1:46:49 of that.
1:46:49 So that would be the same criteria getting it out of our
1:46:53 collections.
1:46:54 And so then when the media specialist would be, you know,
1:46:58 entertaining, purchasing it for
1:47:00 his or her school library and working with the principal on that
1:47:04 process, that same language,
1:47:05 pending no new statutory language were to come out in five years.
1:47:08 Um, that would be the same criteria they’d have to review in
1:47:12 order to bring it back into the
1:47:14 collection, if I’m making sense.
1:47:15 So whatever criteria was determined that it was not in
1:47:19 compliance with, they got it out
1:47:21 of our collections would be the same review process.
1:47:24 A media specialist would need to take in order to bring it back
1:47:28 in, be it in five years,
1:47:29 seven years, whenever, um, that would be the same language.
1:47:32 So if it, uh, were determined to be pornographic, it would be,
1:47:37 you know, reviewed, looking at
1:47:38 all four of those pieces, again, bringing it back into the
1:47:41 collection.
1:47:42 Could we put a, this is my question.
1:47:45 Could we just put a, it on an informational agenda item that
1:47:49 these books are now past the,
1:47:50 you know what I mean?
1:47:51 Just to notify the board, we don’t have to vote on it.
1:47:53 It doesn’t have to be a process.
1:47:54 My concern is, is that there’s going to be a series of
1:47:57 opportunities for these books to
1:47:58 come back.
1:47:59 I would just like to know that the opportunity.
1:48:00 You mean like a do not buy list right now?
1:48:02 Like, so it, so say these 30 books or whatever, there’s
1:48:06 situations where they’re no longer
1:48:07 allowed to be inside of our schools.
1:48:08 Five years from now, these 30 books technically under
1:48:12 definitions that may be different or whatever,
1:48:14 are going to be available to come back on.
1:48:16 And there may be some that our committee felt these broke that
1:48:20 level, but the committee’s
1:48:21 there don’t.
1:48:22 And there’s all that stuff.
1:48:23 Just letting the board know, is there something?
1:48:25 They’re published.
1:48:26 We do have to, I mean, we put them on our website, but also we
1:48:30 have to submit
1:48:30 that information to the DOE and then they track those books too,
1:48:34 for that reason.
1:48:35 Okay.
1:48:36 So we’re okay.
1:48:37 We’ve got some sort of catch on the back end.
1:48:38 Okay.
1:48:39 We have, it seems we have several catches.
1:48:40 I remember when we went through this a year ago, I asked
1:48:43 specifically for us to make sure
1:48:44 that we’re tagging those in our system, any books so that media
1:48:48 specialists are aware, you know,
1:48:50 the, hey, that there was objections to this or whatever, so that
1:48:54 they’re, and they’re looking
1:48:55 at it, there’s something, a red flag of some sort that.
1:48:57 Yeah.
1:48:58 Especially because the committee members making that
1:49:01 recommendation may say this is appropriate
1:49:03 for 11th grade, 11th and 12th grade.
1:49:06 So that recommendation would be then noted in there if it’s, you
1:49:10 know, once the district
1:49:10 makes that recommendation and the board were to vote, it could
1:49:14 be that it’s not appropriate
1:49:15 for this group and like thinking of an elementary K six, you
1:49:18 have a wide range of students.
1:49:20 So the committee recommendation that you guys end up voting
1:49:24 could be this book is appropriate
1:49:25 only for fifth and sixth graders or fifth grade on up.
1:49:27 And so then it would be coded as appropriate that way.
1:49:31 So just a question in the last writeup of this, I believe it
1:49:38 said eight years.
1:49:39 Is, is, is there any, is there any years, is this, again, is
1:49:44 this a state thing or is this
1:49:44 a Brevard thing?
1:49:45 This is a Brevard thing.
1:49:46 So if, I mean, if it’s deemed to be out of here, I mean, why are
1:49:51 we putting a year there
1:49:51 at all?
1:49:52 What was the, what was the rationale behind putting any years
1:49:56 waiting for us to be out of
1:49:57 here?
1:49:58 I mean, I’m just saying.
1:49:59 It is true.
1:50:00 But why?
1:50:01 I think because we had a committee of people new and old to the
1:50:07 team really working through
1:50:09 this, we were looking at, you know, at the, the rate that things
1:50:13 are interpreted to be
1:50:16 suitable for fourth grade.
1:50:17 What was once suitable is not suitable.
1:50:19 I think that was just a, an arbitrary time to review that book.
1:50:24 Should it want to come in?
1:50:25 Of course the board can, you know, modify that to what you wish.
1:50:29 That’s right.
1:50:30 Right.
1:50:31 Oh, we’re good at five.
1:50:34 We’re good at five.
1:50:36 Ms. Campbell, Ms. Jenkins.
1:50:37 You guys with that?
1:50:38 Yeah.
1:50:39 I’m fine with it because again, it doesn’t just come back.
1:50:42 It would have to go through the process again.
1:50:44 And, and the, why there has to be a timeframe on it is because
1:50:48 you’re going to, you can’t
1:50:51 have a permanent ban on it.
1:50:55 If the people are going to constantly change the board members
1:50:58 who were elected by the people
1:50:59 of this county change that then the representative of the board
1:51:02 members change, but again, it has
1:51:03 to go through that process again.
1:51:04 So if it is something that is blatantly absurd, it’s not going
1:51:07 to make it through that.
1:51:08 I mean, hopefully you won’t make it through the committee.
1:51:12 Well, if you didn’t have a timeframe, you could bring it back
1:51:14 next year and go through
1:51:15 the process.
1:51:16 You thought it was removed unjustly.
1:51:18 Well, now you have about five years.
1:51:21 What do you mean?
1:51:23 He’s reversing the theory.
1:51:26 Right.
1:51:27 So if, if things change.
1:51:29 Right.
1:51:30 But so the reason the board had made that decision in the past,
1:51:34 which I already did against
1:51:34 the eight, because it seemed absurdly long, but the reason that
1:51:37 they put it on their
1:51:38 is because it’s, it will be impossible for our staff and for
1:51:42 these committees to function if
1:51:43 they’re just coming willy nilly in and out.
1:51:45 And, and the reality of a year later, this, that, that opinion
1:51:50 changing, it’s probably not
1:51:50 going to, but your members of your board aren’t going to change.
1:51:53 Your appointees aren’t going to change.
1:51:54 So it doesn’t make any sense to, I mean, if we’re going to
1:51:58 change the number, I think it
1:51:59 should be a four or an eight.
1:52:01 Right.
1:52:02 Like that makes sense because the board and the committee
1:52:05 members might change, but, but
1:52:06 leaving it wide open seems messy.
1:52:08 Five’s good.
1:52:09 Cause it’s after the four year term, whatever.
1:52:11 Okay.
1:52:12 I was just wanting to write it behind it.
1:52:13 Yeah.
1:52:14 All right.
1:52:15 The next one is, is letter N parents shall have the right to
1:52:18 read messages from any material
1:52:19 that subject.
1:52:20 If the board denies a parent, can we walk through how a board
1:52:24 would deny a parent from
1:52:25 speaking at the podium?
1:52:26 Or could we make that the board chair?
1:52:28 Does that make sense to you?
1:52:29 Is there a, my thing is it’s just clarification because there’s
1:52:33 what it’s saying is, is the
1:52:34 board, which would, in my mind, take a majority of a board in
1:52:38 order to do that.
1:52:39 Like if you’re speaking, the board denies a parent, the right,
1:52:43 it’s difficult for the board
1:52:44 who has no control over the public speaking to say that I would
1:52:47 say the board chair.
1:52:48 That’s all.
1:52:49 That’s the statutory language again.
1:52:50 Personally, I think it’s probably better to keep it the board.
1:52:53 I mean, and maybe the right process is, hey, parent, pause.
1:52:56 I feel like this is an appropriate board.
1:52:58 Take a vote right now.
1:52:59 Continue reading or not.
1:53:00 That way it doesn’t fall just solely.
1:53:02 Like right now you’re the chair, but I mean, could it, whoever,
1:53:05 it could fall solely
1:53:06 on one person.
1:53:07 And then I would die.
1:53:09 That’s why I made that argument last time.
1:53:12 It didn’t make sense.
1:53:13 Yeah.
1:53:14 I would die to go into voting and then the debate that would
1:53:18 occur to vote on a person
1:53:19 while they’re standing there.
1:53:21 Like I have no problem saying the chair.
1:53:23 Mr. Gibbs, did you say in many things written, when they said
1:53:27 the board they were actually
1:53:28 talking about the chair?
1:53:29 Did I hear that in the last meeting or no?
1:53:31 Well, what we talked about was.
1:53:32 Did you ask Gibbs or did you ask Ms. Campbell?
1:53:35 Mr. Gibbs.
1:53:36 Mr. Gibbs?
1:53:37 Yeah.
1:53:38 What did I, I’m not understanding what you’re asking.
1:53:41 Well, the language where it says the, if the board finds.
1:53:44 Right.
1:53:45 I vaguely remember you saying something that many times it’s
1:53:49 written when they say the board,
1:53:50 they’re actually referencing the chair of the board.
1:53:53 The chair runs the meeting.
1:53:55 Right.
1:53:56 So the chair generally stops somebody.
1:53:58 I could envision a situation where somebody else says, ah, this
1:54:02 is, you need to stop.
1:54:03 And if the board chair doesn’t speak up and say, wait, I didn’t
1:54:07 stop them.
1:54:08 They can continue reading and they let them.
1:54:10 Should be the board chair.
1:54:11 That person may walk away thinking that the board stopped them.
1:54:16 All right.
1:54:17 That’s easy enough.
1:54:18 All right.
1:54:19 Those are the only changes that I had.
1:54:20 Sorry, Ms. Harris, you go through them.
1:54:21 I just wait my turn.
1:54:22 Does anybody else wish to say anything else?
1:54:24 No?
1:54:26 Okay.
1:54:27 On to the next one.
1:54:28 Board policy 2521 instructional materials program.
1:54:31 Ms. Harris, would you like to say this?
1:54:33 Yes.
1:54:34 So we have instructional materials program that you have seen
1:54:39 recently.
1:54:39 And I believe in April was the last time it was reviewed.
1:54:43 Again, some quite a bit of overlap.
1:54:46 So we’re thinking around clarifying of classroom libraries.
1:54:50 You’ll also find language.
1:54:52 If you look on page two and you will see it says on or before
1:54:58 July one.
1:54:59 One of the big highlights here would be that the superintendent
1:55:02 would certify.
1:55:03 So we have a document filled out based on the estimation or
1:55:07 estimated allocation.
1:55:08 The reason that is important is this will be the first year that
1:55:12 the state is providing districts
1:55:14 the textbook or instructional materials funding in that lump sum.
1:55:18 It’s not a categorical anymore.
1:55:20 And so that is just a process put in place so that money is earmarked
1:55:24 for instructional materials.
1:55:25 So that is in this revised policy.
1:55:28 The additional documentation that we’ll provide to the DOE, the
1:55:33 superintendent will sign stating
1:55:34 that when we purchase instructional materials, what is new to
1:55:38 this language is that we’ll
1:55:40 also provide professional learning that is specific to the
1:55:45 encoding and decoding that’s involved
1:55:47 in the science of reading.
1:55:48 So that is a new language that is in here just to specify that
1:55:52 change that we’re going
1:55:53 to buy instructional materials, but we’re also going to provide
1:55:56 professional learning around
1:55:57 how they incorporate that science of reading and those materials.
1:56:00 Again, the big change of this because you’ll see a lot of
1:56:05 foundational reading skills.
1:56:06 Anytime we’re purchasing instructional materials, that we’re
1:56:10 being very clear that those materials
1:56:12 align to the science of reading with the big piece of that we’re
1:56:17 no longer using pictures to help
1:56:19 students encode the meeting, that we’re using phonics in that
1:56:24 reading foundation.
1:56:25 Pictures can be used then, and this is all in here, but the
1:56:29 pictures would be used to help students
1:56:29 make meaning, but not to decode the word.
1:56:33 And then when you get past that integration of that new language
1:56:37 around, you speak to then the objection process.
1:56:41 So we have gone through that with 2520.
1:56:44 So am I to understand that your wish to anything that was
1:56:49 revised in 2520 with that clarification of language,
1:56:52 that we can replicate that in these exact procedures that we
1:56:58 would follow for 2521.
1:57:01 The form you will see that is also part of 2521, that is our
1:57:06 objection form.
1:57:07 And so that is the form that will be used by parents or
1:57:11 residents to object to either books, video material, or other
1:57:18 instructional material.
1:57:18 Mr. Gibbs mentioned this earlier.
1:57:23 So something I just want to talk through around this policy is
1:57:28 just some added information that I’m thinking based on feedback
1:57:33 we are getting from the state as we roll out the objection
1:57:36 process.
1:57:36 On our objection form, 42521, it’s called the objection to
1:57:42 instructional materials form.
1:57:44 I would like to add with your permission to the top the
1:57:48 directions for this process.
1:57:50 So we will be putting that on our website.
1:57:52 Schools will have it on their website, but I’d like it also on
1:57:55 the form.
1:57:55 Also with feedback from the state since posting this is just the
1:58:01 addition of adding language around the school or schools where
1:58:06 the instructional material has been found by the objector as
1:58:10 well as the grade level.
1:58:11 The other information, and then again this is just all
1:58:16 suggestions, is you will see that I believe, I don’t know if it’s
1:58:23 on your form that was uploaded, but there is an error in my
1:58:26 email address.
1:58:27 So I will correct that on the form if that is incorrect so that
1:58:30 it gets to me.
1:58:31 Oh, Tara Harry.
1:58:32 Tara Harry.
1:58:33 Yes.
1:58:34 There’s a couple of those throughout the policies.
1:58:37 Yes.
1:58:38 Thank you.
1:58:39 Anybody wish to, so do you need board consensus?
1:58:43 I think we all were shaking our head yes on the instructional
1:58:46 piece of the application.
1:58:47 I’m okay with that.
1:58:48 Are you guys okay with that?
1:58:49 I think we’ve got a board.
1:58:50 Okay.
1:58:51 So you need that.
1:58:52 Do you need anything prior to us having a discussion besides
1:58:55 that for direction?
1:58:56 I do not.
1:58:57 Okay.
1:58:58 Does anybody wish us to speak to this policy?
1:59:00 Okay.
1:59:01 Hearing none.
1:59:02 I think we’re in a good spot.
1:59:04 Thank you, Ms. Harris.
1:59:06 I understand this was a lot of work and I want to congratulate
1:59:09 you on the success.
1:59:10 Thank you.
1:59:11 I think we have a good policy.
1:59:12 My pleasure.
1:59:13 Thank you, Dr. Indell.
1:59:14 All right.
1:59:15 The last topic is discussion review document draft one, designate
1:59:19 dates, times, and locations of school board meetings for meeting
1:59:22 dates for 2024.
1:59:23 You guys, there’s been a little bit of discussion back and forth.
1:59:27 It is so cold in here right now.
1:59:28 I know.
1:59:29 That’s the second page here.
1:59:30 I got it.
1:59:31 You got your second page?
1:59:32 Yeah, it’s two pages.
1:59:33 Okay.
1:59:34 Just wanted to kind of look them over, make sure that you guys
1:59:38 don’t have somewhere that you’re concerned about and, you know,
1:59:42 start there.
1:59:42 So does anybody have any comments, questions, or anything else
1:59:46 on this?
1:59:46 I did.
1:59:47 Go ahead.
1:59:48 I think in March we need to make an adjustment because we don’t
1:59:51 have a meeting over spring break.
1:59:52 Right.
1:59:53 That’s one of the few chances that our ESF staff can take off
1:59:55 even though they frequently don’t.
1:59:57 So my suggestion would be for March that we go down to just
2:00:02 having, unless Dr. Indell feels like we can’t do without two
2:00:06 meetings, that we go down to just one meeting, either have it on
2:00:10 March 12th or have it in the middle of the month at March 19th.
2:00:12 Yeah, thank you, Mr. Campbell.
2:00:14 One of the reasons we wanted to bring the calendar to you to
2:00:17 look at now.
2:00:17 So if we want to make any changes, we can do it before the
2:00:20 organizational meeting in November.
2:00:21 And so one of the first dates we looked at was the March 23rd,
2:00:28 March 26th date.
2:00:30 Yeah, it is during spring break.
2:00:31 And I would want to give staff the opportunity to go somewhere
2:00:35 on vacation if they wanted to.
2:00:37 So my suggestion would be to go to one meeting and probably do
2:00:40 it March 19th.
2:00:41 Okay.
2:00:42 You know, that way it’s in the middle of the meeting.
2:00:45 If we have some projects, you know, Ms. Hand’s always really
2:00:48 good at making sure we stay on schedule with projects.
2:00:50 Yep.
2:00:51 So that we don’t go so far between March 12th and April 9th.
2:00:54 Yeah.
2:00:55 If we went March 19th, that would be a good.
2:00:57 I’m good on that.
2:00:58 You guys okay with that?
2:00:59 Yeah.
2:01:00 I’m fine with that.
2:01:01 Ms. Campbell, Ms. Jenkins, are you okay with that?
2:01:04 Okay.
2:01:05 And then I had one other.
2:01:06 Go ahead, Ms. Campbell.
2:01:07 In September, we have the September 5th, which is one of those
2:01:11 odd ones that we have to
2:01:12 do because we have to do the budget hearing before whatever the
2:01:16 deadline is, the timeline.
2:01:18 But in keeping our, you know, we have in our union contract that
2:01:23 we will try to, you know,
2:01:25 we have the principals to not ask them not to schedule things
2:01:29 like open house or school or
2:01:30 things that teachers are required to go to on board meeting
2:01:33 nights.
2:01:33 Yep.
2:01:34 And that those are going to be the second and third, second and
2:01:37 fourth Tuesdays of the month.
2:01:37 So generally we try to keep them off.
2:01:39 So my suggestion is just September because the 5th and the 12th,
2:01:42 the 17th, I’m sorry, the 5th and 17th.
2:01:44 The 17th is not the fourth Thursday.
2:01:46 It’s the third.
2:01:47 But, and plus that leaves only 12 days between those meetings
2:01:51 that we just put the September
2:01:53 17th meeting on the 24th instead of on the 17th, just to space
2:01:57 them out a little bit more and
2:01:59 keep it on that fourth Tuesday.
2:02:00 You guys okay with that?
2:02:01 I’m okay with that.
2:02:02 Unless there’s a good reason to not.
2:02:04 I did not look at the major holidays and see if we had any major
2:02:08 holidays.
2:02:08 I do not believe it is a major holiday or anything.
2:02:11 I think it was just, they were trying to stay on schedule.
2:02:13 Gotcha.
2:02:14 Ms. Jenkins, you okay with that?
2:02:16 Okay.
2:02:17 I think those are good.
2:02:18 Does anybody else care to wish to discuss any of this?
2:02:21 Well, you know, you, you had mentioned months ago, actually,
2:02:25 actually in the summer, we’re
2:02:26 possibly working around the summer.
2:02:29 Yeah.
2:02:30 So you want to pick up where you.
2:02:32 Yeah.
2:02:33 Just so you guys know, there’s a, the county does it and some of
2:02:36 the other areas do it where
2:02:36 they get a break in the middle of the summer.
2:02:38 So everybody can take a larger, longer time.
2:02:40 Right.
2:02:41 Um, what I had suggested is, is that we create a break inside of
2:02:45 the summer where instead
2:02:46 of having to come every two weeks, we either get rid of one of
2:02:50 them or spread it out so that
2:02:51 you can have three weeks to a month in between there.
2:02:54 Now, I think the county commission does a three week or a month.
2:02:58 I think it’s a month that they take off.
2:02:59 Right.
2:03:00 But it would give us an opportunity to be with our families to
2:03:03 move in between there
2:03:03 and everything else.
2:03:04 So if you take a look at this, um, you have June, June 11th,
2:03:08 June 25th, July 9th, July
2:03:10 25th.
2:03:11 Um, we could move that ninth up.
2:03:14 You could move that 25th back.
2:03:16 There’s just a couple of opportunities.
2:03:18 I don’t know if you guys want to check with your significant
2:03:21 others and find out if there’s
2:03:22 something there or I’m okay, but I would like to create a break
2:03:26 in between there of a larger
2:03:27 amount of time rather than coming every two weeks because it’s
2:03:31 not just the two weeks.
2:03:32 Just so the public understands you’re not just showing up.
2:03:34 You know, the board chair comes in and working with, you know
2:03:37 what I mean?
2:03:37 Agendas and all that stuff.
2:03:38 You have all of the topics that are coming up.
2:03:40 You have to jump on moving with, you know, each one of the
2:03:43 assistant superintendents.
2:03:44 There’s some stuff there.
2:03:45 So I would like to do that.
2:03:46 I’m not opposed to doing that.
2:03:48 The only thing I would say is that I know during the summer, we
2:03:51 have a lot of construction projects
2:03:52 and Sue relies on us to be here to approve some of the
2:03:55 construction costs.
2:03:56 And things that are happening there.
2:03:58 So if we could maybe work in conjunction with her to make sure
2:04:01 that we don’t put her at
2:04:02 a spot where she’s delayed.
2:04:03 You know what I mean?
2:04:04 Yeah.
2:04:05 What I would, what I would suggest, because we, I think we
2:04:08 consensusly think that this is
2:04:09 something we would like to do.
2:04:10 But I do agree with you that we need to make sure with our, you
2:04:13 know, because I think Ms.
2:04:14 Hand’s projects are quoted and everything ahead of time.
2:04:18 But if you can check with staff, because it’s not only that, it’s
2:04:21 student accommodation plans.
2:04:22 There’s a bunch of stuff in there that require dates.
2:04:24 If you could check that knowing we want to block it out and then
2:04:27 go there, that would be the
2:04:27 best way to do it for me.
2:04:29 Ms. Campbell has something.
2:04:30 Yeah.
2:04:31 The only regulation, which I don’t know if they have across the
2:04:34 street, is we do have to
2:04:34 have one meeting per month.
2:04:35 Right.
2:04:36 So, but I’m not, I would not be, have a problem if we can shift
2:04:41 those first three summer meetings,
2:04:43 which are our morning meetings, to having two of those instead
2:04:46 of three of those, however
2:04:47 it might look.
2:04:48 June 25th, that’s the one I’m voting for.
2:04:51 Yeah.
2:04:52 The only thing is, like usually that first week of July, the
2:04:55 week that 4th of July falls
2:04:56 in, a lot of our schools are closed because that’s, you know, so
2:05:00 we wouldn’t want to go
2:05:01 to like the July 9th, but, and we can’t move July 25th.
2:05:05 We can’t move July 25th because that’s the tentative budget
2:05:10 hearing.
2:05:10 That’s the weird Thursday meeting.
2:05:12 Yeah.
2:05:13 I mean, my suggestion would be to look at the July 9th date to
2:05:17 see if that could be eliminated.
2:05:18 Yeah.
2:05:19 You can check with staff.
2:05:20 Yep.
2:05:21 Get back to us.
2:05:22 Anybody else wish to have, he’s going to check with staff on the
2:05:24 July 9th date.
2:05:24 Thank you so much for bringing that up, Mr. Trent.
2:05:27 Anybody else wish to discuss anything else?
2:05:29 Okay.
2:05:30 No.
2:05:31 All right.
2:05:32 I think we’re okay.
2:05:33 Ms. Jenkins, you okay?
2:05:34 All right.
2:05:35 Any board member have anything further to discuss?
2:05:39 Hearing none.
2:05:40 Dr. Rendell, do you have anything?
2:05:42 No, sir.
2:05:43 I’m good.
2:05:44 IT’S TURN.