Updates on the Fight for Quality Public Education in Brevard County, FL
0:00 Thank you.
5:59 To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
6:03 for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with
6:08 liberty and justice for all.
6:11 I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m coming to your space there, I’m sorry,
6:12 I’m coming to your space there to see the flag.
6:13 Dr. Andell, can you address the board with the items on the
6:17 agenda for today?
6:18 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:20 Here we have three different topics we’re gonna cover today in
6:23 the work session.
6:23 The first will be a review of the proposed changes to the Code
6:27 of Student Conduct.
6:28 We’ll also have then a presentation on two more segments of the
6:34 strategic plan and then
6:36 we’ll follow that up with some presentations of some recommended
6:40 policy revisions and policy
6:42 changes.
6:43 So the first presentation is gonna be on the recommended changes
6:47 or updates to the Code
6:49 of Student Conduct and we can turn that over to Mrs. Dampier and
6:51 she can start with her
6:52 team.
6:53 Good afternoon, board members, Superintendent Rendell.
6:57 Today I bring forward the proposed changes and recommendation of
7:03 changes to the 2526 Student
7:05 Code of Conduct by the District Discipline Work Group as well as
7:10 other stakeholders.
7:11 I have Mr. Armstrong, Director of Student Services, as well as
7:15 Assistant Director, Mrs. Kelly.
7:17 She’ll be ascribing for us in real time of any changes today
7:25 throughout the presentation.
7:29 The District Discipline Work Group consisted of representations
7:32 from board members.
7:33 We ask that you each give us two nominees.
7:37 Brevard Federation of Teachers, Brevard Association of School
7:40 Administrators, Local Union 1010, Student
7:45 Advisory Council, School Resource Officers, and community
7:52 members.
7:54 So throughout the year we met four different times from October
7:57 through February to solicit
7:59 feedback and we really, really worked hard and we stayed to the
8:04 agenda throughout each one
8:06 of the sessions.
8:07 There was a purpose.
8:08 The purpose there was to collaborate as well as to get feedback
8:12 of proposed changes.
8:13 So we took each section of the Code of Student Conduct and we
8:17 had groups give feedback.
8:19 Then we did a gallery walk and they went around and they gave
8:21 feedback on the gallery walk.
8:23 And then the process was that we gathered that feedback, the
8:27 district team came back and assembled
8:29 that feedback and then sent it back out to the group prior to
8:32 the next meeting.
8:33 So then we reviewed that proposed feedback and then we started
8:37 the next cycle.
8:38 Until the last session, which was in February, we gathered all
8:42 of that feedback and shared,
8:45 which we’ll present to you today, that entire cycle of feedback.
8:49 It’s important that we really listen to our stakeholders, which
8:52 includes our students.
8:54 They had a voice.
8:55 We actually went to the Superintendent Student Advisory Council
8:58 session back in November and really
9:01 got feedback from a student voice and that was important to us
9:05 as well.
9:06 So we really wanted to reach and make sure we had feedback from
9:10 all stakeholders.
9:12 As you can see on the timeline, we’re at the February through
9:15 March where we’ve already gathered
9:17 feedback and we reviewed it and we are bringing it forward in
9:20 March to the school board for
9:22 recommendations and then we’ll move forward requesting the
9:26 public hearing in April.
9:31 The protocol, I sort of explained it ahead of time, but the work
9:35 group really had a big,
9:36 huge job to really provide feedback.
9:39 It was a cycle of feedback where we really – we had good
9:43 conversation throughout.
9:45 There were some things you’ll see in your packet where they
9:47 recommended that we did not move
9:49 forward with, either it was redundant, we already had that in
9:54 place, or it was against
9:56 statute or policy or it was not something we were moving forward
9:59 with.
9:59 And the team, our district team really looked at the feedback
10:02 and we brought it back to the
10:03 team just so they could see that cycle that we’re just not doing
10:06 – you’re just not here for nothing.
10:08 We wanted you to have a product and we ended up with a product
10:12 that we feel very proud to
10:14 bring forward to the board for recommendation.
10:17 And sitting before you today, you have that final draft of
10:21 recommendations.
10:22 At this time, I’m going to turn over the presentation to Mr.
10:26 Armstrong and he is going to go over step
10:29 by step of all the recommendations and the impact that it would
10:33 have if we made those recommendations.
10:36 And then we’re going to have feedback from board members of any
10:39 other additional changes that
10:41 you would like us to make to the Student Code of Conduct before
10:44 we bring it in April.
10:46 So I’m going to turn it over to Mr. Armstrong.
10:48 Hi, good afternoon, board members and Dr. Rendell.
10:53 I just want to go through quickly and just for those that might
10:57 not remember last year or
10:58 who were not part of us last year of what it looks like when we’re
11:03 looking at this spreadsheet
11:04 that we’re going to show you with the recommendations.
11:07 So when you’re looking up here, the item number all the way to
11:10 the top left there is just a
11:13 numerical number that we may refer to when talking about item
11:16 one or item two.
11:18 It’s just an easy way we can refer back to each of the
11:22 recommendations.
11:24 The second part there is the session.
11:26 So you’ll see that it’ll correspond with either sessions one,
11:29 two, three, or four.
11:31 Some of them, it was kind of a bridge between multiple sessions.
11:36 So you’ll see just that as a reference point for you when you’re
11:40 looking at the document.
11:42 The other part there next to it there is the revision.
11:44 Some have our total revisions of an existing statement or
11:49 definition or behavior while others
11:52 might be a completely new version of that.
11:56 The code of conduct topic there is just simply telling you what
12:02 the topic is that we’re discussing
12:04 at the time.
12:05 So the SB stands for student behaviors.
12:08 CS stands for corrective strategy, which is sometimes known as a
12:12 consequence.
12:13 We might refer to levels or numbers there.
12:16 And they’re going to be numerically sometimes referenced on a
12:19 page number and a code of student
12:21 conduct.
12:22 As well as seen acronyms such as WCD, standing for wireless
12:26 communication device or whatnot.
12:29 Or like I said, or the willful disobedience chart of being a WD
12:32 chart.
12:32 Another part here is the actual recommendation itself.
12:38 The recommendation is kind of a summarization of what we did
12:44 with our stakeholders in the district
12:46 discipline work group as well as meeting with district staff
12:50 here to make sure that it’s not
12:53 going against existing statute or policy or that it’s feasible
12:56 for our schools to
12:58 effectively implement into their schools.
13:01 The proposed change is just that.
13:07 It is the proposed change of language change that we are
13:10 proposing to the school board to
13:12 approve.
13:14 So anything that is underlined, italicized, embolded is new and
13:18 additional language.
13:20 So if you do not see it underlined, italicized, embolded, that
13:24 means it’s existing language.
13:25 A strike through just represents that language that is
13:29 recommending to be removed from an existing
13:31 definition or statement.
13:37 And finally on the final column all the way to the right,
13:42 mentions the word feedback there.
13:45 Numerous times I might refer to specific artifacts.
13:50 We do have artifacts one through six.
13:52 So sometimes we’re talking about a certain chart and it’s going
13:55 to reference to a certain
13:56 artifact number in there.
13:58 So if we can go ahead and start, I’d like to go ahead and start
14:13 with our first item one here.
14:15 So looking at this one, this is item one recommended in session
14:19 one.
14:20 It is a revision and the code of conduct topic was bus
14:25 transportation violations.
14:27 Both the major version we have and the minor version.
14:30 They’re both existing incident codes.
14:33 There was a recommendation to make there to be more of a clear
14:38 definition between the two.
14:39 There is already existing examples in both.
14:42 However, the discipline work group wanted a little bit more
14:46 clarity to them.
14:48 So the proposed language there is just to add the words.
14:52 These include, but not limited to eating, drinking on bus board
14:58 provided transportation.
14:59 This is something that is existing already on most buses, but
15:04 they wanted it definitively added
15:06 into the minor version.
15:08 So that is a recommendation that we have cleared, cleared and
15:13 looked and that looks to be one that
15:15 they are wanting to move forward with.
15:18 The second one is a little bit more in depth, so I want to kind
15:34 of talk this one out.
15:35 So currently what it’s showing there is that, oh, there we go,
15:41 is for physical aggression.
15:44 We have three existing codes here.
15:46 We’re looking to collapse into potentially just two.
15:50 So we have a student behavior number 57, physical aggression one-sided.
15:56 Sorry, I think I was jumping on it.
16:00 Physical aggression one-sided for third grade through 12th grade.
16:05 We have a physical aggression through pre-K through second, and
16:08 then we have a fighting non-sessor.
16:10 The fighting non-sessor is just a local coded version of a
16:14 assessor fight.
16:15 So it was the recommendation of the discipline work group and of
16:20 the district staff here to collapse some
16:23 of those into just two new codes.
16:27 They would also be called physical aggression.
16:30 However, the delineating factor in those is that instead of
16:34 having multiple ways to say that students
16:36 have put hands on one another in an inappropriate manner,
16:40 to collapse it into the language as such.
16:43 Individuals participating in a mutual or non-mutual and/or
16:47 aggressive physical contact
16:49 with aggressive intent towards another student or school board
16:52 employee resulting in no injury.
16:54 The delineation of resulting in no injury because if it does
16:58 result in injury,
16:59 we have existing assessor codes of fighting assessor,
17:02 simple battery and/or aggravated battery that would cover those.
17:05 So the creation of those would actually lead to less confusion
17:10 because we wouldn’t have so many ways
17:12 to say there’s inappropriate contact between students.
17:15 We would have just a more simplified way to run that data.
17:19 So the third item is also an existing student behavior, student
17:40 behavior 31 false accusation
17:42 against staff member.
17:43 There was asked to be a revision to that.
17:46 The recommendation was to add a broader term to staff member,
17:50 adding terminology such as volunteers or even considering the
17:56 terminology adults in authority.
17:58 After conferring with the discipline work group and district
18:02 staff,
18:03 we are making a recommendation to add the terminology of school
18:07 board approved personnel.
18:09 Sort of simple fact, if you are approved by school board
18:13 personnel,
18:13 means you already, you would be a volunteer, you would be some
18:16 sort of adult authority on campus.
18:19 So that way we’re not continuing to list more and more versions
18:23 of an adult and authority as we go out
18:24 throughout the year.
18:25 So that would just be a simple update to current language.
18:33 Number four is again, it’s an existing term we have student
18:38 behavior 62 profane obscene and vulgar language major.
18:41 The recommendation was to add any profanity directed at a BPS
18:48 employee.
18:49 Again, after consultation, we decided that using the terminology
18:54 of any profanity directed towards any BPS board approved
18:58 personnel
18:58 would encapsulate any sort of adult authority on campus.
19:02 So again, that would just be a simple update in the language of
19:06 the existing definition.
19:16 Number five is an existing corrective strategy CS 43 student
19:21 behavior contract.
19:22 The recommendation was to remove the word contract and to
19:27 replace it with the terminology agreement.
19:29 To utilize that it’s staff and cooperation with the student and
19:33 guardians and not just the contractual agreement.
19:36 So the language would read as such student behavior agreement
19:39 correcting inappropriate or disruptive
19:42 student behavior through a formal agreement between student and
19:45 staff.
19:46 So the only change would be would be adding those bolded italicized
19:50 and underlying terminology to an existing corrective strategy.
20:01 Number six is an existing student behavior we have student
20:07 behavior 78 threat to school staff and student number 118.
20:11 The recommendation was to eliminate the local code of threat to
20:16 school staff and student
20:18 and to classify all threats under the state definition, which is
20:22 the threat and intimidation TRE.
20:25 The thought behind that is then it would lead to less perhaps
20:29 under reporting of threats by having a local code.
20:32 Sometimes we could walk that line of that.
20:34 So by eliminating that and just having things coded by what the
20:38 state definition is,
20:39 we would be better in line with the office of safe schools.
20:42 So that would be an elimination of that student behavior.
20:53 Number seven is number 68.
20:58 It is six sexual assault.
20:59 This is an existing assessor code of the 26 that we do have from
21:04 the state of Florida.
21:05 The recommendation was to move it from an existing place as a
21:09 level four to a level five.
21:12 Level five being the highest in our discipline code of conduct.
21:15 There’d be no change to the definition.
21:18 It would simply just be a level change from a level four
21:22 to a level five making it one of the more severe
21:24 incidents we have on our code of student conduct.
21:28 Number eight is student behavior 76 is testing security
21:35 violation.
21:36 Numbers one, two, four.
21:37 This was a new code that we introduced last year.
21:41 There was some discussion of making a major and a minor version
21:46 to delineate between
21:49 the invalidation of one test against multiple tests.
21:52 And we determined after looking at this that it would make more
21:57 sense to just move it from a level
21:58 two to level three.
22:00 It still gives schools the flexibility to utilize existing
22:04 corrective strategies
22:06 without having to create another student behavior onto there.
22:09 So it still demonstrates what they’re asking for, which is to
22:14 make sure that if it does violate more than one
22:17 student, that there is additional consequences or corrective
22:20 strategies that can be added.
22:28 Number nine is an artifact, so you could refer to artifact one.
22:33 These are the guidelines to levels one and four behavior
22:37 incidents.
22:38 There was a recommendation for a creation of guidelines for
22:42 specified student behaviors
22:44 to ranging from levels one all the way up to level four to add
22:49 some more consistency and continuity
22:51 of the discipline that is being enacted at our schools.
22:54 So within there, there still is some flexibility for principals
23:00 to utilize their autonomy and authority.
23:04 However, it really provides a straightforward guide for them to
23:08 follow when it comes to
23:11 first, first offense, second offense and third offense and
23:14 therefore so on from there.
23:16 This was something that we went through on session three and
23:22 then came back and spoke again to it on session four.
23:25 Number 10 also came up in session three as well.
23:32 With the additional use of artificial intelligence in our
23:37 schools,
23:38 we decided to make a draft guideline of responsible and ethical
23:42 use of artificial intelligence.
23:44 This would be artifact number two in your packets there.
23:48 And this is really just to kind of give schools and parents the
23:52 idea of what is acceptable use
23:54 of that and what would not be acceptable use of artificial
23:58 intelligence in our school system.
23:59 We already have codes in our student code of conduct that can
24:03 address it discipline wise,
24:05 but this is a nice guideline for them to follow and this would
24:08 be implemented into our code of student conduct.
24:11 In addition to this, there would be an update and policy 5136
24:17 for our wireless communication device.
24:26 Number 11 came actually from our district staff here.
24:31 Currently right now we have an FBA and a BIP as well, okay.
24:38 Functional behavior assessment or a behavior intervention plan.
24:43 These are existing behavior plans that right now we have in
24:46 levels one through three.
24:49 As I mentioned before where we are introducing a student
24:53 behavior agreement and a little bit later,
24:56 I’ll talk about another corrective action of a behavior plan we’re
25:00 implementing.
25:01 So that way we’re not automatically jumping to a higher tiered
25:05 approach for discipline.
25:06 Not all students need to have a BIP or an FBA.
25:11 So it’s more of a tiered approach that way when they are if if
25:15 they are moving up the ladder,
25:17 we already have some things in place in levels one and two.
25:21 And but we’re just moving those that FBA and BIP up to a level
25:25 three in the existing code of conduct.
25:27 Number 12 also came from district removing any wordage around
25:36 restorative practices.
25:39 There was some of this language still existing in our code of
25:42 student conduct.
25:43 And again, going by DOE guidance, this language is now being
25:48 recommended to be removed from our
25:50 student code of conduct, which would result in the restorative
25:53 practices corrective action being removed
25:56 as a available corrective action for our schools.
25:59 Number 13 also is a district recommendation.
26:08 And this is just really just a formality.
26:10 We have an existing corrective action of plan meeting and it
26:14 mentions the terminology IPST.
26:17 That is just an outdated terminology of individual problem
26:22 solving team.
26:23 So now just dropping that I and just having it as problem
26:26 solving team was just a recommendation.
26:29 So no other impact in other than just updating that definition.
26:32 Number 14 I referenced just a few minutes ago of behavior plan.
26:44 This is a new corrective action.
26:46 We would add that we would like to put into our level one and
26:50 this is more of a collaborative approach
26:53 of behavioral strategies and interventions that we would like to
26:57 incorporate for schools to utilize.
26:59 Instead of jumping right to something like a functional behavior
27:02 assessment or a behavior intervention plan,
27:05 utilizing something like the behavior plan is a more of a tiered
27:10 approach at a level one.
27:12 And then if need be, we can work up through the higher levels of
27:15 an FBA or a BIP.
27:17 So this would just simply be an update to the code of student
27:20 conduct.
27:22 Number 15 came up in session three.
27:31 This is the topic of smart glasses or sometimes referred to as
27:35 metaglasses.
27:37 The recommendation was to make sure that we code that
27:41 appropriately in our existing code of conduct.
27:44 So instead of creating a brand new code just around that, we
27:47 encapsulated it now to be utilized.
27:50 If a student is using their smart glasses on campus, it would be
27:53 coded as an electronic
27:55 telecommunication device misuse major, which is an existing
27:58 level three on our code of conduct.
28:02 And you would also see that in artifact number one and three,
28:05 it is referenced in there to tell schools when and if smart
28:10 glasses are utilized on campus,
28:12 how they should be coded in there.
28:23 Two things that are not on here are that with the changes that
28:27 we’re proposing,
28:29 there would be some changes in the existing policy for WCD,
28:35 which is the 5136 and also the attendance policy of 5200.
28:42 The WCD policy would just have the language added of smart
28:47 glasses when we’re outlining what WCD would be.
28:53 And 5200, there is some updated language change when it comes to
28:58 some of our existing attendance procedures.
29:01 This was made in conjunction with stakeholders where we were
29:06 working with staff and stakeholders to get
29:08 their opinion and feedback.
29:10 So looking at artifact number six under section G, it talks
29:16 about personal illness of a student with a parent
29:19 to get a note, medical evidence may be required for the
29:22 principal or designee for absences exceeding
29:25 five consecutive days.
29:26 Right now, for it to be an excused absence, they have to bring a
29:31 doctor’s note in.
29:32 This would allow a parent to excuse an illness, but anything
29:36 after that five days, they would have to
29:39 seek a medical note from a doctor or a licensed physician.
29:43 And that’s just the change in the policy there.
29:46 In there also in section G, it kind of lists out some reasonable
29:52 excuses for time missed at school.
29:54 Two things have been added in there.
29:57 Absences not included in the excuse of absences above shall be
30:02 unexcused,
30:04 simply saying that if it’s not listed above, then those would
30:07 count as unexcused absences for our students.
30:09 And the next one here is more giving a guideline of when absences
30:16 must be reported to schools.
30:18 So the proposed language is absences must be reported to the
30:21 school by the parent or guardian
30:23 within two days or 48 hours in order to be considered as an
30:27 excused absence.
30:28 Right now, that’s kind of a varied guideline right now.
30:32 There’s some inconsistency in that.
30:35 So we’re trying to provide some consistency of when and how we’re
30:39 rolling out our excuses for our students.
30:43 If you look on our code of student conduct on page 39,
30:49 there is a one pager that we introduced in there.
30:53 It was existing from last year, but there’s been some updated
30:56 language,
30:57 some best practice information, including chronic absenteeism.
31:02 Really trying to outline to parents and students what chronic
31:07 absenteeism is,
31:08 what regular attendance should be.
31:10 It should be more than 95% of attendance in the academic school
31:15 year and et cetera.
31:16 So we tried to be really straightforward with parents so they
31:19 have information up front.
31:21 So that way they’re more well informed.
31:26 And finally, number 16 for the district would be the potential
31:37 closure of the alternative learning
31:39 centers.
31:40 Again, the recommendation of closing the brick and mortar ALCs
31:44 and moving to school-based
31:46 stipulation conduct agreements and or an online learning
31:50 platform.
31:50 So within that, there would be some movement of our existing
31:56 level four and level five incidents,
31:58 depending on board recommendation and direction they would like.
32:03 Right now, we have tentatively put some recommendations in there,
32:08 but we would seek the board to provide any clarity whether or
32:12 not they want anything
32:13 else moved from an existing level four to a level five or vice
32:17 versa.
32:18 Any questions so far?
32:23 All right.
32:26 I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of conversation.
32:27 So I’ll jump in if anybody else wants to jump in.
32:29 A couple things.
32:29 All right.
32:30 Thank you.
32:31 This is no small undertaking to go through this.
32:33 And this is a document.
32:34 And Mr. Armstrong, we spoke about this.
32:36 You’re going to continually touch this as times change.
32:38 Yeah, exactly.
32:38 And children learn different things.
32:39 And that’s just part of the nature of this.
32:41 So a couple of thoughts I wanted to just kind of go through.
32:44 Having the five different levels is good.
32:48 I think level fives should be reserved.
32:51 My personal opinion, and I don’t know where the board lands in
32:53 this,
32:53 those should be reserved for non-negotiable.
32:55 Those are expelable offenses.
32:57 I think one of the challenges that we see is when there’s a menu
33:01 of,
33:01 if you commit these offenses, and there’s a whole plethora of
33:04 them,
33:05 you can implement any of these consequences.
33:07 And again, an entire plethora.
33:08 Then we start getting the inconsistency when it comes to how we’re,
33:12 we’re actually enforcing our discipline, right?
33:14 So if the, if they cuss a teacher out and you can either call
33:17 someone,
33:17 call a parent, write a referral, or you can suspend them for
33:20 five days.
33:20 When those options are both available, then we start seeing like,
33:24 oh, this could get a little gray.
33:25 Like, why are we doing this for one student, not for the other?
33:28 So I think one of the ways to really clear it up is that if
33:31 level five happens,
33:33 level five means that is an expellable offense.
33:36 And then there’s no question there of like, what are your
33:39 choices?
33:39 What is your options for punishment?
33:41 That’s board.
33:42 I don’t know where, what your appetite is for that,
33:44 but I think maybe just to clear it up a little bit, that might
33:46 help.
33:47 So, so students and families and teachers know like, what is the,
33:51 hey, this is the, this is the line.
33:53 We are toeing the line here with this.
33:54 One of the other things that I, you know, want to reiterate.
33:59 So the stay away contract, stay away agreement that we’re
34:03 changing it to.
34:04 One of the things I would ask for that is that parent contact
34:07 must be made
34:09 before the student is asked to sign that form.
34:11 So the concern that I have, and I’ve heard this from multiple
34:15 parents,
34:15 is that their child was brought into the dean’s office because
34:17 of some
34:18 squabble with the student.
34:19 And they were asked to, they were told that they must sign this
34:22 agreement.
34:23 And if they don’t adhere to it, then they can be expelled.
34:25 And so not parent contact, I want them to actually speak to,
34:29 the parent has to acknowledge, yes, I am okay with this.
34:32 My student can sign this.
34:33 So I just think we get into the weeds of potential issues there.
34:38 And so from a parent’s perspective, I’m just going to ask, can
34:40 we please,
34:40 please, please, please make sure the parent knows that this is
34:43 happening,
34:44 that their student is signing this prior to, in case they have
34:47 any concerns,
34:47 or they want to share additional information.
34:49 Sometimes incidents happen outside of school that spill into
34:52 school.
34:52 And there might be some pertinent facts there that we need to
34:54 know as well.
34:55 So that’s one ask there.
34:57 When we looked at this on the first page, number two,
35:02 the physical aggression, this one, this one makes me sigh.
35:06 I will tell you that.
35:07 When we look at what we’re changing here.
35:09 So physical aggression, physical contact or aggressive intent
35:15 towards another student
35:17 or school board employee resulting in no injury.
35:19 Kids will be kids.
35:22 There will be physical aggression, no doubt about that.
35:24 I expect to see that a little more between kids.
35:26 When it’s talking about physical aggression towards a school
35:29 board
35:29 employee or approved person, I have zero tolerance for that.
35:33 So a child should not be physically aggressive towards
35:36 one of the leaders in the school, whether that be a mentor, a
35:38 teacher, an IA, whoever it is.
35:40 So my feelings on this are that one should probably have a heftier
35:45 penalty
35:45 than kids being kids and kind of just, you know, fighting
35:50 amongst themselves
35:50 or being silly or pushing each other.
35:52 It’s a different category when you’re looking at a child
35:55 trying to come after a staff member.
35:57 That’s a personal, that’s my personal thought.
36:00 So I’m just kind of kicking out ideas here.
36:01 I don’t know how we want to handle this on going through there.
36:03 But I mean, the undertaking that you guys have is not an easy
36:06 one.
36:06 Ideally, where I would love to see this happen is that it’s very
36:10 clear, like, hey,
36:11 if this offense gets committed, then this is the penalty.
36:14 I know that that’s a really hard thing to do because there are
36:17 so many offenses that just pop up,
36:18 some things you never even think about.
36:20 And so trying to define that clearly is not an easy task.
36:24 So I understand why we have the menu.
36:26 But my ask would be board, would you support looking at fives
36:29 being non-negotiables?
36:30 These are expellable offenses so that everyone has a clear
36:33 understanding
36:33 and there’s no wish wash over, is this, are they expelled or
36:37 they’re not expelled?
36:38 What are we doing?
36:39 Are you done?
36:43 Yeah, I’m done for right now.
36:45 I might come back and have more things as people talk.
36:47 But for right now, we’ll let that one, yeah.
36:48 We’ll make sure to answer that.
36:50 Okay.
36:50 Sure.
36:51 What?
36:52 No, I don’t have more right now.
36:53 So thank you, Ms. Campbell.
36:54 So you have a question on the floor.
36:56 Do we want to move those and clearly define section, the level
37:00 five offenses?
37:00 Do you need information back now?
37:03 So yeah, my–
37:04 Because I have a bunch of questions.
37:05 Yeah, my, yeah, my ask was can fives be, like, can we make
37:09 category five,
37:10 these are the list of expellable offenses and they’re non-negotiable.
37:13 So it’s not potential of, it could be suspension and school
37:15 suspension, behavior plan, whatever it is.
37:17 These are non-negotiable, expellable offenses.
37:22 And then, you know, keep the menu option open for one through
37:25 four with the different variations of offenses and potential.
37:29 If these offenses occur, it is non-negotiable.
37:32 If they’re level fives, right.
37:34 So my ask would be, let’s work on level fives and making sure
37:37 that level fives truly are expellable offenses.
37:40 In my mind, they are.
37:41 They are, some of them are, by state statute, expellable
37:45 offenses for 365.
37:47 Some of them are not, so, okay.
37:51 Yeah, the one that comes to mind to me is aggravated battery.
37:56 It’s not specifically delineated to be, like, expellable.
38:01 It can be, but you’re right.
38:02 Technically right now that can result in an ALC placement.
38:06 So if we were to keep that as a level five under your direction,
38:08 then we would make that an expellable offense right off the bat.
38:12 Right.
38:12 Aggravated battery is when you use a weapon and hit somebody,
38:15 right?
38:15 Aggravated battery is defined by the state really done to more
38:19 serious bodily injury.
38:21 So that’s why there’s a delineation between a simple battery is
38:24 less serious bodily injury.
38:26 There’s some type of medical care provided.
38:29 More serious is, comes down to broken bones.
38:33 Like you, you were pregnant and you were attacked, like, et
38:36 cetera.
38:37 It usually means like.
38:38 It’s also a weapon.
38:39 Yeah.
38:40 Okay.
38:41 Um, you ready?
38:42 Yep.
38:43 Okay.
38:43 I’m going to go.
38:45 Oh, am I on?
38:45 Hello, hello.
38:47 Let me go backwards just a little bit.
38:50 On the attendance policy, thank you for making that update.
38:54 I think this is the one thing that’s been left when it comes to
38:57 attendance that parents are concerned
38:58 about.
38:58 Why should I go pay a copay?
39:00 It’s that my child is excused absence because when I, when my
39:04 kids have a cold and this is,
39:05 I’m one of those parents, no, you’re staying home until I know
39:07 it’s strep throat or whatever.
39:08 We’ve eliminated everything.
39:09 Right.
39:09 So that is, that’s something people have been asking for.
39:11 I appreciate that.
39:12 But I also appreciate this 48 hours because you can’t get to the
39:15 end of the semester and go,
39:16 oh, two months ago that was excused.
39:19 So I think that’s, that is absolutely reasonable.
39:20 Thank you for doing that.
39:21 On the list, I had a question on the threat to school staff or
39:33 student, which is number six.
39:35 So what if it doesn’t reach assessor level?
39:41 And so, and the reason why I ask that is, you know, obviously we’ve
39:45 recently gone through some
39:46 of this stuff with those of us who sat on an expulsion hearing,
39:49 but also, you know, if you have, let me get to my definitions.
39:52 The definition of TRE, which is assessor definition, we don’t
39:57 get to make that one up,
39:58 is the reasonable, so, so what are we, what is the school going
40:03 to code it if it’s,
40:05 for example, a young student or whatever, you know, it’s not
40:08 reasonable, but they’re still making a
40:09 threat. Is there, you know, are they still, you know, is that,
40:13 is there some place where that’s going to go?
40:16 Depending on what’s said, existing code says the profane vulgar
40:20 major might be able to take that.
40:22 It’s a level three, which would be existing, what a threat to
40:25 school staff student would be,
40:26 so that would be maybe an appropriate thing.
40:28 Okay.
40:29 Or we could look at, we have electronic misuse major talks about
40:33 the use of threatening language,
40:36 dehumanizing language, maybe if it’s done through electronic
40:39 purposes, there might be a way to
40:40 utilize existing codes.
40:41 Right. Right.
40:42 And that’s the, that is the problem with some zero tolerance
40:47 type things is if you have a little,
40:49 you know, you have a kid who just, you know, I’m going to punch
40:52 you in the face. Well, that’s a threat.
40:53 If it’s a first grader, is that reason, I don’t think it will
40:56 qualify assessor, right,
40:58 because it’s not going to qualify. And if they actually follow
41:00 through with it,
41:00 then it’s going to be one of these.
41:02 Yeah, they follow through, it’ll meet the criteria.
41:04 Right. That’s a whole different ballgame.
41:06 Okay. I just wanted to ask that question, just like, what do we
41:08 do with those that are threats,
41:10 but they don’t rise to the level of assessor definition, since
41:12 that is defined for us.
41:14 On the artifact number one, on the third page, no, fourth page,
41:26 sorry, the final page of that,
41:27 that have the second offense guidelines for drug use possession,
41:32 DRU and fighting FIT.
41:34 If we’re going to change how, whatever we land on this, when it
41:39 comes to the ALCs,
41:40 I think we might need to adjust some language under second, for
41:46 DRU, it says four to 10 days
41:50 out of school suspension pending investigation, right, which is
41:52 always the first step, right,
41:54 before we’re about to head to alternative setting or expulsion,
41:57 placement and alternative setting for a specified period of time,
42:00 that could still be our online
42:03 thing. So I guess that one could be okay, right, if setting, I
42:09 don’t know, I think setting like a
42:10 physical placement, but I guess setting could still be a, you’re
42:13 at home learning.
42:14 Yeah, and I think the language was specific for that, not to
42:17 then, sometimes we say the words
42:19 alternative placement or alternative setting, we, our minds go
42:22 to ALC.
42:22 Right.
42:23 But like the P code that’s utilized for something like an
42:26 alternative placement,
42:27 it is truly, if you are not in your regular school setting, so
42:31 if you’re in a program like that,
42:33 we could probably keep that language of alternative setting and
42:35 be okay, but we can change.
42:37 Right. No, I just, as long as it’s clear with the people who are
42:41 putting, and then the other thing I had was
42:43 on the fighting one, that first bullet, again, the second
42:50 offense bullet, parent conference notify,
42:52 an extra referral may result in 10-day pending expulsion or
42:58 alternative setting, because that’s,
43:01 you know, I’m assuming that we’re going to leave, assuming that
43:04 we’re going to leave fighting as,
43:06 they’re going to have that, you know, because it’s level four,
43:08 it’s going to either be the opportunity
43:10 to have the diversion program or the online learning option. So,
43:16 and the 10-day pending,
43:18 that’s going to happen either way, correct?
43:20 Right, that’s just the process we utilize when a student is
43:22 under investigation.
43:23 Right, while you’re doing investigation, you’re not on campus
43:24 while we’re figuring this out,
43:25 and we’re having all the meetings we have to have.
43:27 Okay. Okay. Okay. So, when it comes to level four, level five,
43:39 and the conversation,
43:40 the question that Ms. Wright asked, well, actually, let me back
43:48 up, because I want to address this,
43:49 because that’s going to be a longer conversation. Ms. Wright,
43:51 you said something about physical
43:52 aggression, difference between a student and staff member. I
43:54 think that menu that we have in those
43:56 levels allows the principal, and we have, in our policy, a
44:00 specific section that talks about,
44:02 if you lay hands on a staff member, however heavy or light, it’s
44:06 a one year. That’s still in there,
44:08 right? Yeah, it’s policy 5,500. Right, right. So, I think that’s,
44:12 that is going to be the difference between student versus staff.
44:16 So, then, should we fix it on here,
44:19 though, so that it’s not different? Because I, if I think if it’s
44:21 open on here, and somebody just pulls
44:22 this out, they might not recognize. Well, physical aggression
44:25 can be, like, it doesn’t even have to go to the
44:26 level of touching, correct? I believe how we’ve, let me see how
44:31 we’ve verbalized it here.
44:31 I think it, the word physical means, it does. Let me see how it
44:35 was. Well, I mean, because you could be, like.
44:37 It does mention the words, aggressive physical contact. Okay,
44:42 contact, okay.
44:42 All right, so this level 5 thing, I absolutely agree with you,
44:46 but I think we’re actually already there,
44:48 because if you look at the level 5s, so the corrective
44:53 strategies are, the first one is out of school
44:55 suspension pending, up to 10 days pending investigation. That is
44:58 always, as I mentioned,
44:59 the first thing. Right.
45:00 So, that’s got to be on there, because that’s the process.
45:02 The second one is that recommendation for online learning. So,
45:06 so,
45:06 you’re still learning. It’s this conversation we had, and then
45:11 there’s expulsion.
45:12 And I think that referral to mental health services, that is not
45:16 in lieu of all those things, correct?
45:18 That is, if it was a specific part of that process.
45:20 It would be in conjunction.
45:22 Yeah.
45:22 In conjunction with threat assessment, that’s going to go in
45:25 addition to. So, I think we’re already there.
45:28 Yeah, no, what I was meaning was more so the left side. What are
45:30 the level 5s? That’s what I was
45:32 referring to. Sorry, I didn’t clearly.
45:33 So, I agree. And I actually think that we moved, I think that
45:37 staff moved too many over to 5. And hear me out.
45:41 First of all, let me just be very clear. Level 4 is also very
45:45 serious and has very serious consequences.
45:48 But I think we moved, in my mind, 2 over that should not have
45:53 been, that should have remained at
45:54 level 4. And because anything we put in level 5, we just took
46:00 the option away. We only need to put
46:02 things over in level 5. And I think this is where you’re getting.
46:05 Where we want to remove the possibility
46:08 from the principal to have that option of leaving him at school.
46:12 If we think, I don’t even want the
46:14 principal to have that option, put it in a 5. There’s two, I
46:18 think, that need to stay in 4. And
46:20 one is false accusation against a staff member. And I’m just
46:23 reading the definition. I know we’re all
46:26 thinking of certain scenarios, but I want us to think of all the
46:29 scenarios that would have fit that.
46:31 And we are removing the option if the principal is, you know,
46:34 considering the age of the child. And I’m
46:37 looking at elementary also. The principal’s looking at the age
46:41 of the child, past behavior,
46:45 the seriousness of the certain circumstance. They don’t get to
46:47 take any of that. If we leave it,
46:48 if we put it on a 5, they don’t get to take any of that into
46:50 consideration. It’s automatically one of
46:52 these out of school options. And I think false accusation
46:55 against a staff member needs to stay level 4,
46:57 which is very serious. And can result in the student being
47:02 removed from the school,
47:04 but put in this online, this success pathway program online. The
47:09 other one that I believe needs to stay
47:11 level 4, still a very serious behavior that needs to be dealt
47:17 with in a very serious way, is sexual
47:19 harassment. Because that is the one, unlike the other sexual
47:23 offenses, battery sexual offense and assault,
47:25 that one’s words versus actions. And I believe that one needs to
47:29 stay level 4.
47:30 Again, considering this is, we’re also talking about pre-K
47:33 through sixth grade. We’re not giving
47:35 administrators any leeway to deal with the certain circumstances.
47:39 And I, when I’m thinking about
47:40 students, and again, I’m, I’m, I want to make sure we’re giving
47:44 super principals options, and they will
47:47 have the option to send them out and put them on the pathway
47:50 online. We have students who just don’t know
47:53 better. And they are, they have been raised around this kind of
47:57 verbiage. And if we allow them,
48:00 with sexual harassment, to enter the behavior diversion program,
48:04 to have that as an option,
48:05 there, then they are being, they’re, they’re going to be held to
48:09 super high standards.
48:11 They can write that stipulation conduct agreement, however tight
48:15 they want it. And then if the student
48:18 is a repeat offender, we’ve already said what we, we’ve, this
48:21 board’s been already clear what we want
48:22 to do with those stipulation agreements. If they’re not meeting
48:25 it, they’re out. And not just if you make
48:27 another sexual harassing comment. If you are, you know, cussing
48:31 at a friend or doing whatever, you’re,
48:34 you’re, that can be however tight we want it. But I believe that
48:37 we need the best opportunity for those
48:38 students, especially for first time offenders, is to leave them,
48:42 give the principal the option to leave
48:45 them on campus so they can get the social work help, they can
48:47 get the counseling help, all the things that
48:49 we, that they’re, they would discuss last time about the
48:52 behavior diversion program, so they can get the
48:54 help that they need. Knowing that, knowing that, principals and,
49:00 you know, have the authority to
49:02 do something more severe if they think it is there. So those are
49:05 the two that I believe we need to move
49:07 back over to four to avoid what you just talked about is let’s
49:09 leave level five just with the things
49:11 that we don’t, we’re taking away options with level five. But
49:14 those are the ones I think we need to
49:15 leave that option for the administrators so they can deal with
49:19 them according to the circumstances that
49:22 brought it up. Ms. Campbell, if I could just verify, so
49:25 eventually because everybody’s kind of putting
49:27 some ideas on the table, you’d like us to weigh in on whether
49:30 sexual harassment and false accusation
49:33 of staff should be moved from a level five to a level four,
49:34 correct? That’s what you just said?
49:36 No, well, technically I’m asking them to stay where they were.
49:39 They were level four to not be moved to
49:41 level five. That’s one thing. And then did you have any other
49:44 requests that you had that you were,
49:46 you were for the board to decide on? No. Because I mean, I
49:49 understand what we’re doing. I was just trying to make
49:50 sure that we address them in a minute. That’s all. Okay, thanks.
49:52 Mr. Chair? Sure. So a couple things.
49:58 First of all, under what Ms. Wright had suggested, I’m all for
50:05 moving the, for physical aggression,
50:08 moving that to a level five for a BPS, how you worded that, BPS
50:13 approved?
50:15 Yeah, but currently right now it says BPS school board employee
50:20 in existing language.
50:22 But yes, we had made some adjustments and other ones are school
50:25 board approved personnel.
50:27 Okay. Well, school board approved personnel, I think would be
50:30 appropriate. But I’m supportive of that.
50:33 I believe that one thing is with the giving discretion to the
50:38 principals is great on one hand. I know from being a
50:41 law enforcement officer previously that that is nice to have
50:44 that, but it also leads to inconsistency.
50:46 And one of the things I’ve heard, you know, over the last year
50:49 and a half is that our discipline
50:51 hasn’t been consistent. I think it’s gotten much better since
50:54 this board before my time has taken over the last
50:56 year. But that was one of the things I had heard was it was
50:58 things were inconsistent. So I would like to see
51:02 personally for level three that we remove one to three days and
51:06 just make it three days out. And level four
51:09 remove the one to five days and remove the up to 10 days and
51:13 just make it five days. And level five is
51:17 10 days pending expulsion. And do we have progressive, is it
51:21 progressive discipline if you’re a level four
51:23 violation and then you do something totally different or you do
51:26 that same violation again,
51:28 is it progressive where you automatically go to level five? It’s,
51:33 it’s listed on the pages.
51:33 Or is it? Because we added that on the page. Where’s the part
51:40 that says if you do it more than once?
51:42 Yeah, under special consideration. Okay. Oh, repeated. I believe
51:52 it’s on the bottom.
51:52 There talks about repeated acts more than, to find this more
51:55 than two times. That’s the repeating,
51:58 repeating the same act, correct? That would be repeating of the
52:01 same act. Yes, sir.
52:02 Yeah, but you can level up. But if you could do two level fours
52:05 and still be on a level four?
52:06 Well, if you do two level fours, most likely you would be on a,
52:09 on a 10-day pending and possibly
52:11 removed to an alternative placement or a setting. So there’s,
52:15 there’s, it’s, I don’t want to speak
52:18 too broadly here, but usually if someone commits to level fours,
52:21 that’s usually not something that’s
52:23 going to happen concurrently. That’ll be something that they’re
52:25 being probably recommended for
52:27 alternative placement for that first level four. If there’s a
52:31 way of removing that usually and
52:34 making it part of the policy, I think that would be remove some
52:37 of that inconsistency. Regarding what
52:40 Ms. Campbell suggested, I also think those are good suggestions
52:43 as far as the moving the false
52:44 accusation and sexual harassment back to keeping it at level
52:48 four. And my apologies, Ms. Dampieri,
52:52 when we went over this, I probably should have caught that, but
52:55 that was a good catch by you.
52:56 But I do think it does give a little bit of, I think it’s a good
52:59 suggestion. And then there was a
53:02 couple of things on here that I didn’t, that weren’t on the,
53:05 that are in the code that I just caught
53:08 that did not come up. One is a couple of things that are
53:11 currently level two that, you know, I just
53:15 thought they were a little low for what they are. One is the
53:17 possession of ammunition.
53:18 Second one is a forgery and cause that’s a felony and that’s
53:23 only a level two on the, on our discipline
53:25 policy. This is for secondary. All these comments are secondary
53:29 to high school or through high school
53:30 or secondary. And then the last one was possession of stolen
53:34 property because I think that needs to
53:37 have a dollar value because it’s one thing to have possess a
53:40 stolen pencil and that’s another thing to
53:42 possess a Rolex watch of somebody else’s. So I think there’s got
53:45 to be some kind of standard stipulation of what
53:47 constitutes a level two versus maybe a higher level for
53:50 possession of stolen property.
53:54 And I would suggest maybe a hundred dollars or greater, but they
53:57 got up to the board if they
53:58 so choose to move forward with that suggestion. And my only last
54:04 comment is, it’s just the, you know,
54:08 I’ve said it before, but I think, I know there’s certain
54:10 guidelines we have to go by, but when it gets
54:12 to the point of a student being expelled, I think they should be
54:14 expelled. And it’s, you know, by that point,
54:17 they’ve, it’s, it’s, they need, there’s a penalty that they need
54:20 to, a price they need to pay. And that’s it.
54:23 Great. Thanks. Mr. Susan.
54:26 Mr. Thomas, can you read what you wanted us to look at? I know
54:31 you had given weight in on the
54:33 false accusation of staff and sexual harassment, but you had
54:35 also said something about some of those
54:37 level twos that you were concerned about. I was trying to make a
54:40 list here so that we can all kind
54:41 of follow. Is my mic on? Okay. Um, I suggested on right now
54:47 under level two, we have, um, ammunition
54:49 possession. And my thought behind that is normally kids don’t
54:52 just walk around with bullets. There’s
54:53 probably a reason why somebody has bullets and maybe somebody
54:57 else has a gun. Um, but just the
54:58 possession of ammunition should be higher than a level two, uh,
55:02 forgery. Um, that’s a felony in the
55:04 real world. So I think that that is, uh, should be appropriate.
55:08 I’m talking about for secondary,
55:10 not for, for elementary school. And then the last one was
55:14 possession of stolen items. Um,
55:16 because that can be, like I said, there’s a difference between a
55:19 stolen pencil and a stolen
55:21 Rolex watch. So I think there should be a, a value where if it’s
55:24 over a hundred dollars or greater,
55:26 maybe that possession of stolen of a stolen item is a level
55:29 three or four, whatever the board so chooses.
55:32 But I just think it should be higher than a level two. Okay.
55:34 Thank you, sir. Thank you.
55:37 I also didn’t want to say the same thing anybody else was saying.
55:41 Yeah. Okay. Ms. Dampier,
55:44 Ms. Dampier for the next one, I’m just going to go through the
55:47 student code of conduct and just
55:48 kind of go through what I saw. Um, all right. Let me just go.
55:52 All right. One of the things it says,
55:56 responsibilities of parents and guardians. Um, in there, I was
56:00 looking through there to try to find
56:02 out if. Okay. Six. I’m sorry. I should do a better job of that.
56:06 Thank you, Ms. Campbell. Um,
56:09 appropriate, encourage your appropriate behavior, student
56:12 behavior and all that stuff.
56:14 It doesn’t say anywhere there that it says you should review the,
56:17 the, uh, discipline with your
56:19 student. You know what I mean? Like, I don’t know if we want to
56:22 put it in there. If you feel that this
56:23 is all there, but one of the things that I keep going back to is
56:26 I tell these parents, you know,
56:28 you should know what’s inside of here and have a conversation
56:31 with your kid because there’s a lot
56:32 of things that we do that have real bad ramifications. And when
56:35 your kid does them,
56:36 you come screaming back to us. I didn’t know this. I didn’t know
56:38 this. You’ve got to do it. That’s all.
56:41 So if you feel like I’m not advocating for it, but if you feel
56:44 like this touches that and hones that
56:46 in, um, that’s great. And to be honest with you, I doubt many
56:50 parents are going to open up the student
56:51 code of combat, go to page six and say, Oh, that’s what I should
56:54 do. But I can at least reference it
56:55 when I’m going in and I, and I have the argument with parents
56:58 who may not do that. They may have a
56:59 child that made a decision that is inappropriate. We can add
57:02 that if the board chooses to, but, um,
57:05 they do have to sign off. Um, they, they do, they do sign off,
57:10 but we can put something.
57:10 They’re going to review it because what happens is, is that then
57:13 we can go back and say, well,
57:15 you know, you signed this thing and you should have reviewed it,
57:17 but here’s one little thing.
57:18 So that was just a weird one that I had. Um, okay. So when we’re
57:23 reading through these level ones,
57:24 through fives and both the elementary and middle school, you
57:26 know, something that came up years ago,
57:28 and I keep honing in on it. Um, when these things come up as a
57:31 good Samaritan law to where we hold
57:33 kids accountable that may see something that don’t want to say
57:35 something because they feel that the level
57:36 of pushback from their friends is going to be bigger than the
57:40 level of pushback from the school
57:41 district. Does that make sense? Have we ever entertained a good
57:44 Samaritan law to say that if you watch or
57:46 see something, you are, you have to report it. Does that make
57:49 sense? It’s in policy. Yeah. Where is that? What,
57:52 what is that? I’ll look it up if it’s in policy. I believe we,
57:58 we have an existing code failure to
58:00 report criminal offenses. Do we need to put that inside of here
58:03 as one of these levels? Because it
58:05 might be inside of policy. We may have some of those. And that’s
58:08 what Ms. Wright was kind of commenting
58:09 about with some of these things that may be over here, that may
58:12 be over there, that do we need to put
58:14 something in here? I don’t know. Um, finding out that if you do
58:18 not report something that you see,
58:20 depending on the level, if I’m part of an order, if I’m sitting
58:23 there and I see some kids breaking into
58:25 a school and then I’m later found on a video, should I be held
58:27 accountable? Uh, page, page 46. Yeah.
58:30 Failure to report criminal offenses. Okay. So where is, so page
58:35 46, I got you. That’s the definition.
58:37 Where is that inside of the code of con like? Level one, level
58:42 one. It’s a level one. All right.
58:49 I just, okay. I mean, if everybody’s okay with the level one
58:55 being, you know, those corrective
58:57 actions and stuff like that. No, I, I’m sorry, Mr. Susan, they
59:00 misspoke. Uh, failure to report
59:02 criminal offense is a level four. Okay. And that’s on page, what’d
59:06 you say? 46? I’m sorry. Well,
59:08 the definition’s on page 47 is the page of the definitions. Oh,
59:13 you’re talking about, oh, yeah.
59:14 Yeah. In the draft form it’s on page 46. So we’re saying when we
59:18 say criminal offense,
59:20 is that any offense that’s inside of here or what is the
59:22 definition of that?
59:23 Um, right here. Sorry. I will. I’ll read it to you. Students are
59:28 aware of serious offenses,
59:30 which include, but are not limited to the possession of weapons,
59:32 firearms, and drugs,
59:33 and failed to report that information to a teacher administrator
59:36 at their earliest opportunity.
59:37 So weapons, drugs, do we have fighting? Do we have disrespect to
59:44 teachers? Do we have, you know what
59:46 I mean? So if a student watching, you see what I mean? Well, um,
59:53 no, now we do have something if
59:55 they’re videotaping a fight. Oh, I got that. That’s, that’s,
1:00:01 that’s the major. That’s a cyber. Yeah.
1:00:03 I’ve got that. Right. The definition does say students who are
1:00:06 aware of serious offenses,
1:00:08 serious offenses, which include, but are not limited to weapons,
1:00:12 firearms, drugs. So serious offenses.
1:00:16 Could mean that’s a, to me, that’s great. Could we put like
1:00:19 level four and five offenses or something in there? Could we do
1:00:22 something like that?
1:00:23 Yeah. I don’t know. I, it’s just me. It’s clear enough to me. I
1:00:27 mean, I hear you.
1:00:28 I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with that. I’m just, here’s
1:00:34 what it is, is that we have a series
1:00:35 of the situations where after the fact, we find out after we’ve
1:00:39 done all this investigation, that there
1:00:40 are other people that are involved and they never came forward.
1:00:43 And sometimes things are not clear,
1:00:46 like, you know, all these different things. There’s kids that
1:00:49 watch fights. There’s kids that do these
1:00:50 things and they don’t ever report it. And it just gives an
1:00:53 opportunity for us to tell those kids,
1:00:54 hey, if you don’t report this, then you will be held accountable
1:00:58 to the same standard that these
1:00:59 individuals that were doing so were. And it, and it just falls
1:01:02 to the bottom line. So we don’t have
1:01:03 to do it if everybody’s kind of like, this is a gray area. I
1:01:05 feel like it’s already in there though.
1:01:07 Yeah. It’s just, it’s not truly defined. So it’s okay. I’m okay
1:01:11 with that. I’ve got more.
1:01:12 Mr. Susan, I understand where you’re trying to go with it. And I
1:01:15 wouldn’t be opposed to that.
1:01:16 Yeah. Yeah. I just, well, you’re just saying like level four and
1:01:18 five. So like failure to report a level
1:01:20 four or five. Right. Uh, under the student behavior. I don’t,
1:01:25 yeah, I mean, they should.
1:01:26 We have a lot of, here’s, here’s just an example. So there’s,
1:01:28 there’s students that are, that are, um,
1:01:30 that are very nasty to teachers and to staff and everything else.
1:01:36 Right. Or they do things to the
1:01:37 teachers or they do stuff and it, and it could be, or anybody
1:01:41 else. And they just doesn’t get reported.
1:01:43 They don’t get reported. You see kids that are being attacked
1:01:45 inside of a school. So like it might be,
1:01:47 um, somebody might be, uh, you know, online, uh, bullying a kid
1:01:53 inside of the school and stuff like
1:01:54 that, but there’s not being reported. And if there’s somebody
1:01:57 that’s held accountable to know that if I,
1:01:59 if I’m, if I see this, I’m supposed to report it, then we might
1:02:02 catch some more of it before it becomes
1:02:04 an issue. I can do a better job and bring it back next year. But
1:02:07 my concern was, is that just saying those
1:02:09 things on there is just not, doesn’t define it all, but I can do
1:02:12 a better job.
1:02:13 What if you just said, what if it said failure to report
1:02:16 criminal offense or level four or five
1:02:19 student behavior incident? Like if we added that, that would
1:02:22 cover those. Do you think those are okay?
1:02:24 Would that help?
1:02:25 That would. I just don’t know if it was a backlash on that.
1:02:28 So you’re actually missing out on a few level three.
1:02:30 Yeah. I feel like we’re here with this and maybe it’s a lack of
1:02:35 understanding of exactly,
1:02:36 but you know, there’s, there’s two ways to do that. First of all,
1:02:40 a student doesn’t need to report
1:02:41 something that happens to a teacher because the teacher, I mean,
1:02:43 these are things that we’re not
1:02:45 catching. These are the things that we need students to report
1:02:47 to us, which they do all the time.
1:02:48 Yes, things are falling through the crack, but these are, it
1:02:51 says the definition is for criminal offenses.
1:02:54 I think there’s two ways to go about it. One is the punitive way,
1:02:57 which is this, which we have.
1:02:59 If you, if you saw something and you didn’t say something and we
1:03:01 can, one, we have to prove it,
1:03:02 that we, we know you were aware of it and you didn’t say
1:03:05 anything, then, then you are this level
1:03:08 four, which is very serious. But the other part is the ongoing
1:03:12 efforts that we have to, to educate
1:03:15 students on the importance of them, especially when it comes to
1:03:18 bullying, which I think you’re referring
1:03:19 to part of that, and is to make sure that they are doing that.
1:03:23 And that, that has to come from both
1:03:25 sides. I know we’re not dealing with the positive side right now,
1:03:27 we’re just doing the punitive side,
1:03:29 but I feel like we have a good definition here for what we’re
1:03:32 trying to do. If we start monkeying with,
1:03:36 and honestly, some of these even level one, two, three changes,
1:03:40 I’ll just go ahead and weigh on these,
1:03:41 some of the ones that were mentioned. Like, I, we have, we have
1:03:43 this committee who went through people
1:03:45 who are in the trenches doing it. They did all this work of
1:03:47 leveling and they’re moving it every year.
1:03:49 Um, except for what, what we’ve been asked to do, which is level
1:03:53 fours and fives, because we made
1:03:54 these changes without the committee and without the input,
1:03:57 because we made this change late in the game.
1:03:58 Mm-hmm. I am. Wait, you mean to tell me that if we make a change
1:04:02 here, that you would be
1:04:03 upset because we didn’t go through the discipline committee for
1:04:07 it? Nope, don’t put words in my mouth.
1:04:08 Okay, I just, I was just. Um, I’m just saying when we, as board
1:04:11 members individually are looking,
1:04:12 I think this needs to be here and this thing, we did that a
1:04:14 couple years ago, we did, and we made some changes.
1:04:18 But I want us to be very thoughtful about the way we’re changing
1:04:21 this and, and realize that in the
1:04:26 process of moving things around over the last couple of years,
1:04:28 we’ve done a good job of getting that
1:04:30 support and, and perspective of people who are in the classroom,
1:04:35 people who are administrators,
1:04:37 people who are in the community, and, and who have been looking
1:04:41 at this and digging deep into all of it,
1:04:43 including district staff. Um, so, uh, I, I haven’t heard any
1:04:48 suggestion of changes of these one, twos,
1:04:51 and threes that I’m like in love with doing if we don’t have
1:04:54 that feedback. So, I, I’m not a hill that I’m
1:04:58 going to die on, but here’s what it is, is that in one argument
1:05:01 you made that the kids may not know what
1:05:02 the difference between sexual harassment and that has, and is,
1:05:06 and is not. In the same regard,
1:05:07 there’s some kids that may not think that certain behaviors are
1:05:10 negative and may not report them. So,
1:05:12 I’ll do a better job and I’ll come back to it. It’s not a big
1:05:14 deal, but I do feel that we don’t,
1:05:15 we don’t do enough of that to hold kids accountable for the good
1:05:18 Samaritan law. So, I’ll just leave it at
1:05:19 that. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I would, I would, uh, support if you
1:05:24 clarified it and said that failure to report a level three or
1:05:26 higher,
1:05:26 level three or higher. I think that one might be appropriate.
1:05:31 Let’s take a look at it.
1:05:32 You know, I’m just afraid of, of what Dr. Rendell said also is
1:05:40 putting a number on that. There, there,
1:05:43 there might be some lesser
1:05:44 issues that we don’t want to overlook. I mean, reporting bad
1:05:50 behavior is reporting bad behavior.
1:05:52 I don’t know if we want to, we want to encourage us. Sure.
1:05:56 Well, look at that. That might work. That might work.
1:05:58 We need to be forthright no matter what, but if there’s a
1:06:01 serious crime like bullying,
1:06:03 for instance, and what was the other one that was in there as
1:06:05 level three that particularly stood
1:06:06 out to me that they should, you should have a responsibility to
1:06:09 report, you know, physically.
1:06:11 I would be interested to see how many, how many referrals have
1:06:13 been written, uh, under this code in the
1:06:16 district. I mean, I don’t, I don’t know that this is maybe the
1:06:18 culture that has been expressed to
1:06:19 students on, on making sure you see, you see something, you say
1:06:22 something. And, and now with
1:06:23 Fortify Florida and Speak Out, um, the anonymous reporting
1:06:29 mechanism is there. And that adds a little
1:06:32 more confusion because what if they are reporting it there? And
1:06:34 we don’t know. And you know what I’m
1:06:37 saying? So those are things to just consider when we look at it,
1:06:39 because they may be reporting things
1:06:41 that, that don’t make it back to us. So when I look at this,
1:06:43 good point, Ms. Wright. I look at this,
1:06:45 and I see level three, bullying, counterfeit, gross insubordination,
1:06:50 inciting, leaving school campus,
1:06:51 network internet misuse, out of area major, physical aggression,
1:06:56 pantsing, pornographic material,
1:06:57 possession of potentially dangerous object, profane obscene,
1:07:02 sexting, testing security,
1:07:04 testing security violation. I like that. That’s something I was
1:07:08 going to bring up in a minute.
1:07:09 Trespassing and vandalism under a thousand. I think if you’re
1:07:11 watching any of that, you should report it.
1:07:13 Well, there’s not a single thing in there that I wouldn’t hold a
1:07:15 kid accountable for not reporting.
1:07:16 I mean, I think you should report these things. I don’t know.
1:07:19 What do you guys feel?
1:07:20 Well, I think the wording that says, if you’re aware of a
1:07:23 serious offense, many of those things
1:07:25 that you talked about there, in my opinion, are serious offenses.
1:07:28 If anything, the title at number
1:07:32 30, failure to report a criminal offense. Maybe it’s just a
1:07:35 serious offense? Yeah, I mean,
1:07:37 but that’s the thing is, is that Ms. Campbell just made a really
1:07:40 good point is, is that if you’re
1:07:41 going to try to move some of these things as sexual harassment
1:07:45 over, knowing what is a serious offense
1:07:47 is left up to the individual. And that’s what I was saying.
1:07:50 Too subjective. It’s too subjective.
1:07:51 Well, I think if it’s in our code of conduct, it’s a serious
1:07:54 offense.
1:07:54 Well, if it is, then that means that all level one through five,
1:07:58 we’re supposed to report.
1:07:59 And then, I mean, it’s, you know, I, do we have, do we feel that
1:08:04 we have
1:08:05 an issue in the district that we have schools saying we can’t
1:08:11 pursue this case because we’ve
1:08:13 had all these witnesses, but they won’t come forward? I, I, I
1:08:16 haven’t had any, I’m just saying.
1:08:17 I see teachers do it. I see kids do it. I mean, it’s a, it’s a
1:08:20 thing. Like I’ve seen teachers that
1:08:22 won’t report things that go on because they’re afraid. I’ve seen
1:08:25 kids that won’t report things that are
1:08:27 afraid, you know, that’s all. You know, we can’t hold the
1:08:30 teachers.
1:08:31 I know. But what I’m saying is, is that it’s common across our,
1:08:34 it’s common, it’s con,
1:08:35 it’s across our thing. I mean, I, I do. If you have a policy
1:08:37 that says
1:08:38 that teachers are supposed to report those things, it’s same
1:08:41 thing. Everybody who’s aware of whatever,
1:08:43 for certain things like our title line policies and our bullying
1:08:47 policies, all those things. So if,
1:08:48 you know, not just technically, but if, if a supervisor realizes
1:08:55 that a teacher has
1:08:57 seen something and didn’t report it. I mean, they could be up
1:08:59 for discipline.
1:09:00 We do a really good job with bullying, and we do talk about if
1:09:04 you see something, we do,
1:09:07 we can add that to our training at the beginning of the year to
1:09:10 clearly define what their responsibility
1:09:13 is to, as far as reporting. We can add that to our trainings,
1:09:17 because we have a video that we,
1:09:20 every student has to view at the beginning of the year about the
1:09:24 code of conduct changes.
1:09:25 And Mr. Susan, if you want three in there, three, four and five,
1:09:28 I support that. Those are all
1:09:29 hefty offenses that I would hope a student would report to
1:09:31 somebody, honestly.
1:09:32 Mr. Chair? That’s a majority.
1:09:33 Sure. My only last comment on that is it does give,
1:09:35 not that we’d like to see it, think every kid would, you know,
1:09:38 every student would like,
1:09:39 would stand up and say, hey, I saw Johnny do this. But this, by
1:09:44 having level three or up,
1:09:46 it does give that student a little cover that he has to say
1:09:48 something,
1:09:48 or he’s going to get in trouble. So that’s a majority.
1:09:50 So we’re changing it.
1:09:51 Just add it to three.
1:09:52 I don’t know. I just go back to, okay, because here, I mean,
1:09:56 why are we putting a number on it? Because I want students who
1:10:01 see ammunition possession,
1:10:03 or gambling going on, or tobacco, or, you know, I want them to
1:10:11 support it, you know.
1:10:13 Is that a motion, sir? What you’re getting at, there’s, I’m not
1:10:15 sure the language is going to
1:10:18 create. The desired effect. Yeah, right. I mean, we can put
1:10:24 everything,
1:10:25 you must say everything. I don’t enforce. And also, we’re asking
1:10:29 our administrators to
1:10:30 track everybody down who might have been aware of this and didn’t
1:10:32 say something, and let’s penalize.
1:10:34 No, I don’t think that. Because the language is there already.
1:10:37 Here’s my only thing is,
1:10:38 the language is there already for them to enforce it if they
1:10:41 wanted to, because this is a serious
1:10:42 offense. If you’re being pulled in by a dean, for example, that’s
1:10:46 already a serious offense,
1:10:48 because most of the students are in class not committing serious
1:10:53 offenses. So, yeah, I mean,
1:10:56 we can make the language as tough as possible, but if it’s not
1:10:59 being enforced, the implementation,
1:11:01 I mean, we could, that’s my only thing. We could, we could make,
1:11:04 Dr. Undell, what’s your input?
1:11:06 Yeah, so a couple of things. First, if you look at the title,
1:11:08 this, this was probably written
1:11:11 for criminal offenses. When we first put it in, it says federal
1:11:15 report, criminal offenses, and it lists
1:11:17 possession of weapons, firearms, drugs, which are criminal
1:11:22 offenses. So, I think when it was written,
1:11:24 that’s what we were thinking. If you knew that a kid had drugs
1:11:28 on campus and you didn’t tell anybody,
1:11:30 you knew a kid had a weapon on campus, you didn’t tell anybody,
1:11:32 you knew a kid had a gun on campus,
1:11:34 you didn’t tell anybody. I think that’s what that was written
1:11:36 for. If we want to broaden it to say,
1:11:38 you need to tell us of any serious offense, then it, the title
1:11:41 needs to be changed. It should be
1:11:43 failure to report serious offenses, and you could leave the rest
1:11:47 of the definition as it is, or you
1:11:49 could say, um, including but not limited to level three offenses
1:11:55 and higher. Then you could still go
1:11:58 grab a level one or two if you needed to. But then we’re leaving
1:12:02 at a level four. We’re going to give
1:12:03 them a level four consequence for not reporting a level three
1:12:07 offense. Right.
1:12:07 So let’s just, let’s, let’s stop and think about. Just to jump
1:12:11 on that. Yeah.
1:12:12 It was probably criminal because there could be constitutional
1:12:15 issues with trying to compel
1:12:17 students to speak out for non-criminal offenses. Because
1:12:20 criminal, you can say, is a safety issue
1:12:23 in the school. We need to keep it safe. I saw you push Johnny
1:12:26 into the toilet in the bathroom.
1:12:29 My, in criminal necessarily. So trying to compel that speech
1:12:34 from a student and then disciplining
1:12:35 them could raise constitutional issues. So that’s something I
1:12:38 would have to look at. I haven’t looked
1:12:39 at that. So depending on the circumstance, it could be. So, I
1:12:44 mean, it’s possible that
1:12:46 trying to capture, you have to report every act you see that
1:12:51 violates a school rule,
1:12:53 it could violate constitutional principles. I don’t know for
1:12:56 sure. I’d have to look at it, but.
1:12:57 So, this one says. Level four is failure to report a criminal
1:13:05 offense, which is okay.
1:13:07 And then level one somewhere was said that failure to report. Is
1:13:11 that what it was?
1:13:12 No, that was it. That’s it, it’s not. So then we can put a
1:13:16 failure to report
1:13:17 other behaviors because, and have two of them, right? Well, he
1:13:22 could, but I think Mrs. Wright
1:13:23 actually made a good point earlier that maybe we should go look
1:13:25 and see how many of these we’ve
1:13:27 actually, how many times we’ve actually used this. And, you know.
1:13:32 Well, and then the anonymous factor
1:13:34 of students being able to report through those two apps, I think
1:13:36 that might make it just hard. I don’t,
1:13:38 I mean, I, I’m with you, Mr. Susan, 100% on, I want students to
1:13:41 report. If you see something,
1:13:42 I don’t want a student to feel as though, and if this policy or
1:13:45 this student code of conduct gave
1:13:47 them the shield to feel like, hey, this is, I have to report it.
1:13:50 If you’re thinking of it like that as
1:13:51 a mechanism there, I think really what, what needs to happen is
1:13:56 it needs to be accurately trained and
1:13:59 taught to our school sites to be able to convey it to students
1:14:02 as well. Because I don’t know how often
1:14:04 they’re looking at this thing. They never do. They never look at
1:14:06 it. They never will.
1:14:06 And creating a culture, and creating a culture in a building
1:14:10 where students feel safe to report
1:14:12 that. And, and the carrot and the stick, the stick model is not
1:14:15 going to, I don’t think it’s going
1:14:17 to get across what you’re wanting to do. So what are we going to
1:14:19 do? We’ve got a majority to go to
1:14:20 three or five. I, I, I suggest that we leave what’s in the code
1:14:25 of conduct written the way it is
1:14:27 and talk about a different, um, offense or definition if you
1:14:33 want for federal to report
1:14:34 other offenses. That would make more sense. But I don’t know if
1:14:38 that’s,
1:14:38 I almost feel like I’d like to talk to the deans a little bit
1:14:41 and see, do they really need this?
1:14:43 Okay. So well, and I would, and Mr. Gibbs brought up the
1:14:46 constitutional violation potential there. So I
1:14:49 think that’s worth exploring. So compelling children to, uh, so
1:14:52 we have a student that watches something
1:14:55 happen. We get it on videotape, we go through a huge
1:14:58 investigation, we get to the end of it and we
1:15:00 find that we don’t hold them accountable for doing it. If it’s
1:15:03 not a criminal offense, talk to me about
1:15:06 that scenario. Um, so Mr. Seuss and in the time that I’ve been
1:15:10 here since 2019, I’ve seen, I believe
1:15:14 just two times that a student has been, uh, recommended for ALC
1:15:18 placement based on this.
1:15:19 And I believe if I’m not mistaken, it was for, um, someone
1:15:23 coming on campus, a non-student with, um,
1:15:26 a potentially dangerous object and the school went ahead and
1:15:30 utilized that as in this code exactly for
1:15:32 that. Um, and just, I can’t speak of how many times have been
1:15:35 used cause you can use a level four
1:15:37 without rep, uh, recommending ALC placement. So we can run the
1:15:40 numbers, but in the time that I’ve,
1:15:42 uh, been in discipline, I’ve only seen it used twice to be
1:15:45 recommended for ALC placement.
1:15:47 And so just so everybody understands when I went through this,
1:15:49 um, before, when I, when we go
1:15:52 through the discipline, giving the opportunity to create a
1:15:54 culture where students feel like they have
1:15:57 to do X, Y, and Z to be a part of it, whether that’s stronger
1:15:59 discipline, whether that’s an opportunity,
1:16:01 if they feel like somebody else was there and they feel like
1:16:04 that person may report,
1:16:05 they may feel compelled to report. Giving that opportunity to me
1:16:09 means a lot because that would
1:16:11 mean that we would capture a lot more of the stuff that’s going
1:16:13 on. That’s all. And it would also
1:16:15 inhibit a lot of people from actually trying to do things if
1:16:18 they knew that Joey over there was
1:16:20 watching and that they would have to be reported. It gives that
1:16:22 extra piece. But just like you guys
1:16:25 said, it’s not the hill I want to die on. We have a majority of
1:16:27 board to go to three to five, but Dr.
1:16:29 Rendell makes a good point. Let’s look if it’s legal. Let’s
1:16:31 separate it and see. That’s all. I’m okay
1:16:34 with that, if that’s okay with you guys. And again, we can make
1:16:37 sure that that is explained in our
1:16:41 beginning of the year code of conduct so they know what that
1:16:44 actually means. Well, let’s go and make
1:16:45 sure that it’s not something we don’t need to put in and then we’ll
1:16:47 come back to it. Okay. Thank you.
1:16:50 All right. And then something came on just, okay, so if we go to
1:16:54 page 12, still we’re in elementary,
1:16:57 but it’s kind of something that I was going to bring up. Use of
1:16:59 devices that records or takes
1:17:03 information. So I don’t know if you guys are aware of what
1:17:06 happened recently at one of our schools,
1:17:08 but we caught what’s known as a flipper. And I don’t know if you
1:17:11 guys are aware of what a flipper is.
1:17:12 I had no idea. I am unfortunately now. So what happens is, is
1:17:16 that there’s a device that students
1:17:17 or somebody can use that comes and gets close to you and can
1:17:20 pull all your information off of your
1:17:22 phone. It can pull information off of the screens. It can pull
1:17:25 information off of anything it gets in
1:17:27 touch with. It was caught at one of our schools. The kid was
1:17:29 reported, but because the staff didn’t
1:17:31 know what to do with it, they gave it back to the parent. The
1:17:34 parent then took it home. And the kid
1:17:36 wasn’t even, you know what I mean? I think it’s something that
1:17:39 we need to address. And I would
1:17:41 say that if somebody’s bringing that, there is an intent to do
1:17:44 harm to somebody or something. And it,
1:17:47 and I know that there’s some guidelines that are kind of vague
1:17:50 in here about, you know, devices,
1:17:52 but I did not see where any of that was actually addressed
1:17:55 directly. Now I know that Officer Klein was
1:17:58 moving on some sort of policy or something to address it, but it’s
1:18:02 the use of us of a wireless device
1:18:05 in a way that’s not really defined in here. Does that make sense
1:18:08 to you?
1:18:08 Do we currently have something? I read, I went through the
1:18:14 definition.
1:18:14 We’re not going to not finish again for something like that.
1:18:17 Again, the terminology we have, I think that’s what Mr. Seuss
1:18:22 might have been referencing.
1:18:23 There is an existing broad terminology with the electronic telecommunication
1:18:27 device misuse major.
1:18:29 I mean, it could encapsulate in there. We would, if we’re
1:18:32 wanting something to specifically mention that,
1:18:35 perhaps adding language that says, you know, to include but not
1:18:39 limited to,
1:18:39 we could add something like that. Or the actual creation of a
1:18:43 new code would be something.
1:18:45 I’ll be honest with you. We already had a failure at our school
1:18:48 by not
1:18:49 adversely addressing it, capturing it, and doing it because it’s
1:18:53 vague already.
1:18:54 And I would like to put it in there. And again, I’m saying this
1:18:58 is because I need the support of the board.
1:18:59 But I think that we should address it specifically and put in
1:19:02 there the use
1:19:04 to capture personal information, data, or anything like that.
1:19:07 And I think it should be an expellable
1:19:09 offense. At least a level four, that’s where I put it over here.
1:19:11 Because we have right now,
1:19:13 the use of wireless devices and all that stuff falls under like
1:19:16 a level one. And then there’s 15
1:19:18 different levels. I mean, it might be able to be construed that
1:19:22 way. And I didn’t want it to happen
1:19:24 again. That’s all.
1:19:24 I think it would fall under robbery. The taking or attempted
1:19:27 taking of money or other property from
1:19:29 the person or custody of another with the intent to permanently
1:19:31 or temporarily deprive the person
1:19:33 of that. That’s a level four.
1:19:35 So I hear you, but I don’t think that that directly defines what
1:19:41 that use is. Because it’s not only
1:19:43 utilizing our personal banking information, other things. It’s,
1:19:47 you know, robbery is one thing. Then
1:19:49 we get into the, is it over a thousand, under a thousand, over
1:19:51 750, under 750. Just put it in there
1:19:54 that it’s a level four expense.
1:19:55 And they have network and internet misuse. They have to use that.
1:19:59 That’s in the level four area.
1:20:00 So it might be enforcement. Right. I mean, I don’t think that we
1:20:04 are letting kids get away with stuff
1:20:06 like that because we don’t have a specific code. I would think
1:20:09 they’re going to find the code that
1:20:10 they need to take care of that. Ms. Campbell, it happened. It
1:20:12 happened recently.
1:20:13 Right. I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I hear you that it
1:20:15 happened. But I’m saying, if administrators didn’t
1:20:20 have the tools they need to get it into level four, I think I
1:20:23 can see a couple of things
1:20:24 that that would qualify under. So are you saying that they didn’t
1:20:30 have a code?
1:20:31 I’m addressing the fact that we should put inside of definition
1:20:35 the fact that if those
1:20:36 type of devices are utilized or brought on campus that the
1:20:40 student is to a level four
1:20:41 that gives the opportunity for them to expel, but we need to
1:20:44 confiscate it. What ended up
1:20:45 happening is we don’t even know what they got on it. We don’t
1:20:48 even know what they recorded.
1:20:49 We gave it back to them. And they could have recorded a hundred
1:20:52 kids’ information and been
1:20:53 going and then we’re putting ourselves in a liability because
1:20:56 now all of a sudden those
1:20:57 kids go back and they use that for something else and then we’ve
1:21:00 got identity theft and
1:21:01 everything else.
1:21:02 So I think one of the tricky –
1:21:03 It is a really bad thing.
1:21:04 They are. And unfortunately one of the tricky things that
1:21:07 happens with this is that they’re
1:21:08 targeting really children and they make it look like it’s a fun
1:21:10 little game that you’re
1:21:11 going to play and then all of a sudden you get this device near
1:21:14 a computer, near your – I
1:21:16 mean it can literally mimic your ID cards, your credit cards, I
1:21:20 mean it’s pretty scary.
1:21:22 So I think where I would 100 percent support that I think this
1:21:25 is a new code that needs to
1:21:26 be made and really it’s going to pertain more so into our
1:21:29 secondary world because I don’t
1:21:30 know that the primary world really a child that’s bringing that
1:21:33 to a primary school doesn’t
1:21:35 I don’t think the intent is there to try to do something like
1:21:37 that. Our older kids get
1:21:39 a little more smart and they figure if they can get all the
1:21:41 answers to the test on every, you know,
1:21:43 whatever that maybe that might be – I think it’s worth
1:21:45 exploring and adding a new code.
1:21:46 And I would just – my recommendation would be, hey, can we talk
1:21:49 to district security about this
1:21:51 because they know more about this and just figure out what that
1:21:54 needs to be and add it.
1:21:55 It needs to go to level four though because it probably – maybe
1:21:59 five.
1:21:59 I don’t know. It’s pretty serious.
1:22:00 Mr. Chair.
1:22:01 Oh, yeah.
1:22:03 Pam.
1:22:04 We can add a new code and we can add it because, you know, all
1:22:07 of this is talking about electronic
1:22:08 devices but a level four and above specifically putting that
1:22:12 information on here like we did
1:22:13 with the smart glasses, trying to encapsulate everything dealing
1:22:16 with that wireless devices.
1:22:18 And these – and we will speak to Major Klein, these kids are
1:22:22 getting so smart so maybe coming
1:22:24 up with a – using that but a broader because if we put flipper
1:22:29 then there’s going to be another –
1:22:30 Oh, I agree.
1:22:30 No, I agree.
1:22:31 I agree.
1:22:31 So that’s why we went with smart glasses instead of that other
1:22:35 – so any type of – so we’ll
1:22:38 talk with him and ask, you know, is there a generic and, of
1:22:41 course, we’ll talk to legal as well.
1:22:42 That’s why we went with the smart glasses instead of the metaglasses.
1:22:47 Right, right.
1:22:48 Kind of like a non-human-like attributes definition.
1:22:53 That was brilliant.
1:22:54 Whoever can – I think that was –
1:22:56 Well, also the continuation of the communication with
1:22:59 administration.
1:23:00 Mm-hmm.
1:23:01 And including the deans because, as Ms. Campbell said, if you
1:23:04 look up and down level four,
1:23:06 there’s – there are plenty of titles that we could have put
1:23:09 this under.
1:23:10 Mm-hmm.
1:23:11 So, I – it’s – again, we – we can have all the language in
1:23:14 the world if an administrator says,
1:23:16 well, it’s not specifically here or they don’t care to do that
1:23:19 and they just don’t enforce it.
1:23:20 Mm-hmm.
1:23:21 So, again, educating the – the administrators of what’s the –
1:23:25 the newest things that they’re trying
1:23:27 to get away with and saying that, hey, find something in our –
1:23:30 in our code of conduct.
1:23:31 It’s going to fall under.
1:23:32 If it’s not – you wouldn’t let them go home with it.
1:23:34 You know, that type of thing.
1:23:35 And we’re going to be – we just spoke today about our training.
1:23:40 A lot of times we do our training where it’s more of sit and get.
1:23:44 We’re going to use some scenarios for the principles.
1:23:47 Actually, on our PD – the August 6th PD Day, we want to use
1:23:51 some scenarios so they can get
1:23:52 used to it and actually be able to collaborate and give some
1:23:56 examples instead of us giving
1:24:00 them the information.
1:24:01 They actually need to be working alongside and be – you know,
1:24:04 have some processing time
1:24:06 to make sure they have a clear understanding.
1:24:07 Mm-hmm.
1:24:08 And a lot of times our trainings are rushed.
1:24:11 So we want to make sure that we have some time dedicated to all
1:24:15 of these changes.
1:24:16 Absolutely.
1:24:17 Mr. Chair?
1:24:18 Yes, sir.
1:24:19 Go ahead.
1:24:20 Just to follow up on that, I just think it’s the tip of the
1:24:21 iceberg from what we’re
1:24:22 going to face in the future.
1:24:23 Mm-hmm.
1:24:24 And I think it’s a great catch, and when I saw the memo from
1:24:28 Major Klein, it’s a great
1:24:29 observation by Mr. Susan.
1:24:32 I think there’s a big difference between cheating using an
1:24:34 electronic device and the intention
1:24:36 of stealing somebody’s information, especially if a student
1:24:40 happens to grab a teacher’s personal
1:24:42 information.
1:24:43 It can be used against them.
1:24:44 There could be photos.
1:24:45 I mean, who knows what those items can capture.
1:24:48 So I would just – my thought is it should be a level five for
1:24:53 that and not be – that’s
1:24:55 a lot more serious than just trying to cheat on a test.
1:24:58 Agreed.
1:24:59 So you guys will look at it, come back.
1:25:01 Okay.
1:25:02 Clarity, we’re looking at requesting a new incident code for
1:25:06 potentially a level five,
1:25:10 specifically for devices that can capture personal data.
1:25:13 In secondary.
1:25:15 In elementary, it might fall somewhere else.
1:25:17 But in secondary, I would say definitely at that level, because
1:25:20 some kids bringing that
1:25:21 with that intent of doing that.
1:25:23 And we can’t even take the opportunity to think that they may
1:25:26 not have, because they could
1:25:27 come on and say, “Oh, I didn’t do anything.
1:25:28 I didn’t do anything.”
1:25:29 But they had the – you bring that on campus, there’s only one
1:25:31 thing that you’re doing with
1:25:32 it.
1:25:33 It’s the intent to do that.
1:25:34 So that was my question.
1:25:35 Possessing versus using.
1:25:36 Possession.
1:25:37 And you’re saying it should all be the same.
1:25:38 Because you can’t bring those – those things should be – it
1:25:40 should be known never to bring
1:25:42 that stuff in our schools.
1:25:43 Mr. Chair?
1:25:44 I just also would like to ask Paul to research how – is there
1:25:48 any legal way of us being able
1:25:50 to access that to be able to see what’s on there, to see if
1:25:52 anything was captured,
1:25:53 or is that something law enforcement would have to try to get a
1:25:56 warrant for, or what the legal
1:25:58 guidelines are for that?
1:26:00 And the reason behind it is that right now, our policy is that
1:26:05 we give the phones back,
1:26:06 which is the way that the administrator did it.
1:26:08 It was like, “Hey, look.
1:26:09 This must be like a wireless device.
1:26:10 I have the parent come in.
1:26:11 Here’s what it is.”
1:26:12 That was the process that went through that.
1:26:14 And I don’t fault them at all.
1:26:15 This is what they were reading.
1:26:16 So we need to be able to confiscate, keep, search, that kind of
1:26:20 stuff.
1:26:20 More like a weapon or a vape or something like that.
1:26:23 Yep.
1:26:25 You’re good with that?
1:26:26 You guys understand the direction?
1:26:27 Okay, good.
1:26:27 Next one is, as I agree with you, Ms. Campbell, the false accusation
1:26:32 of a staff member,
1:26:34 for me, it’s the gray area, right, because one, there’s false
1:26:38 accusation of a staff member with
1:26:40 malice that I think should be expelled.
1:26:42 Boom, you’re done.
1:26:43 And then the other side, though, is that there’s other
1:26:46 accusations that they make about teachers
1:26:48 that we don’t want to fall under this, right?
1:26:51 Have you guys, your feeling is that, Ms. Campbell, if I can hear
1:26:56 you right,
1:26:57 false accusation against a staff member moving from a level five
1:27:00 to a level four gives them that
1:27:02 opportunity to identify and do stuff? Is that what you were
1:27:05 saying?
1:27:05 Leaving it a level four, which is where it was.
1:27:09 Right. Okay, I’m sorry. I’m not, I know.
1:27:11 I know, but I’m going to clarify that every time because I just
1:27:13 want to, I’m just
1:27:14 not trying to set you up.
1:27:15 Level four.
1:27:15 I got you.
1:27:16 I don’t want it to, I don’t think it needs to move to level five.
1:27:19 That way the ministers have those options depending on the
1:27:21 severity.
1:27:22 And then the question I think Ms. Wright made was, is that that
1:27:25 was a,
1:27:25 that might leave too much of a gray area to allow kids that may
1:27:29 be making accusations against staff
1:27:31 to, because we have a couple that I’m aware of right now that
1:27:35 should have been in here,
1:27:36 that these, they should have been expelled.
1:27:38 And they were in elementary school.
1:27:39 They’re vicious.
1:27:40 They were vicious kids.
1:27:41 And they affected one of our teachers to the point where they
1:27:44 almost quit.
1:27:45 Actually three of them.
1:27:46 So I understand that they need to go, but our principals didn’t
1:27:51 feel that way
1:27:52 because of what happened.
1:27:53 So is there an opportunity to split these to say something like
1:27:56 false accusation against
1:27:58 staff members with malice or something, or do we want to keep it
1:28:01 at a level four?
1:28:02 Well, wouldn’t false accusation kind of constitute malice?
1:28:05 Well, like, so sometimes they say false accusation might be
1:28:08 something like,
1:28:08 the teacher did this, this, and this, right?
1:28:12 It’s just a false accusation and the teacher gets mad.
1:28:14 They file this thing.
1:28:16 And then all of a sudden the principal’s looking down and they’re
1:28:18 like,
1:28:18 shoot, I got a level four.
1:28:19 Now I got to expose.
1:28:20 What about if it resulted in disciplinary action to the teacher?
1:28:22 Because sometimes that, I mean, well, I guess that doesn’t
1:28:24 really happen either.
1:28:25 You have to have an investigation.
1:28:26 My whole concern with this and wanting to move it from a four to
1:28:29 a five is that
1:28:29 false accusations can literally ruin a teacher’s career.
1:28:32 Absolutely.
1:28:33 They can ruin their life.
1:28:33 Absolutely.
1:28:33 They can put them in jail.
1:28:34 And to me, I’m like, I don’t, a child shouldn’t be able to hurl
1:28:36 a false accusation
1:28:38 that causes someone’s entire world to be uprooted and not have a
1:28:44 really serious
1:28:45 penalty behind it.
1:28:46 So level four, very serious penalties.
1:28:49 Just going to remind us once again, very serious penalties that
1:28:52 the administrators will have
1:28:53 the option of sending them out.
1:28:55 Well, I mean, for me, I would keep it out of five.
1:28:58 But if the board’s will is to move it to a four or keep it back,
1:29:01 move it back to a four.
1:29:02 Sorry.
1:29:02 I would say the clarification between criminal accusation and
1:29:05 just what I would say.
1:29:06 Yeah, you’re good.
1:29:07 There it is, John.
1:29:08 I would say if we can’t disseminate between whether it’s going
1:29:11 to be a non-criminal criminal
1:29:13 and all that stuff, I wanted it as a five.
1:29:15 But if we can give it out an opportunity, because I’ll be honest
1:29:18 with you, I don’t want it to be
1:29:19 even a question.
1:29:20 If somebody makes an accusation against a staff member with malice
1:29:24 that’s found that they did that
1:29:25 inappropriately and it was wrong, not somebody that might have
1:29:27 seen something or something like that,
1:29:29 we expel that kid and we need to send a message because our
1:29:31 staff is our staff, it’s our people.
1:29:33 But if a kid makes a smaller accusation, you know, that’s up to
1:29:37 me.
1:29:38 I want to keep it at five if we can’t disseminate.
1:29:40 Megan wants to be there.
1:29:41 Ms. Wright wants to be there.
1:29:42 I think Mr. Thomas wants to be there.
1:29:44 And again, like false accusation, like, let me just clarify.
1:29:47 I guess that’s where you’re right.
1:29:48 Because if a little Johnny comes up and said, you know, hey, my
1:29:52 teacher called me a not nice word,
1:29:55 curse word, okay, and they didn’t, that would still constitute
1:29:58 technically a false accusation
1:29:59 against a teacher, right?
1:30:00 And so that obviously wouldn’t be something where I’m like, oh,
1:30:03 little Johnny,
1:30:03 you’re no longer in school.
1:30:04 But now if a student makes an accusation against a coach
1:30:09 that says that they inappropriately touched them or did
1:30:11 something and they didn’t do that,
1:30:13 that’s a whole different game.
1:30:14 Both of them are false accusations.
1:30:16 So how do you delineate between which one is more serious than
1:30:19 the other?
1:30:19 And Paul, maybe we need some guidance from you.
1:30:21 One could be non-criminal, one could be criminal.
1:30:24 That’s true, a criminal complex accusation versus a non-criminal.
1:30:28 Just like we have the reporting by a student on a criminal
1:30:32 offense.
1:30:33 You know, this is, I think we look at that, one person reads
1:30:39 false accusation against the staff
1:30:41 member and this right thinks of immediately criminal.
1:30:44 Criminal is what I’m talking about when I’m saying that.
1:30:46 Correct.
1:30:46 But yeah, we have lots of, you know, my teacher did this and it’s
1:30:51 not criminal.
1:30:52 And now that’s a level five.
1:30:55 You know, if they said, you know, that I’m an ugly kid and it
1:30:59 was proven it wasn’t true,
1:31:02 but now it’s a level, it’s a level five.
1:31:04 Okay.
1:31:05 So is there, is there a way to just–
1:31:07 I’ll also just mention, I mean, take this how you want.
1:31:11 We have a false reporting code technically right now.
1:31:14 It resides as a level two for secondary level one.
1:31:18 And it reads intentionally providing false or misleading
1:31:20 information to
1:31:22 or withholding valid information.
1:31:24 I mean, how you interpret that, that could be like you saying
1:31:27 and more of a,
1:31:28 you’re saying a bad name or something like that.
1:31:30 We can always level it up to something higher than a level one
1:31:33 or two if we wanted to.
1:31:34 So what if we just added false criminal accusation against a
1:31:38 staff member?
1:31:39 Would that alleviate this?
1:31:40 I’ll be honest with you.
1:31:41 By having that back end, since this is my baby,
1:31:44 by having that back end of that policy sitting out there,
1:31:47 that means they’re going to go to that rather than go to this on
1:31:50 some of those.
1:31:51 If we clearly define this as criminal, then I think we’re in a
1:31:53 good spot.
1:31:54 Paul, what do you think?
1:31:55 Good point, Mr. Thomas.
1:31:56 I didn’t want to mull it over.
1:32:00 Okay.
1:32:00 That’s a very lawyer-ish.
1:32:02 Just think about how the best way to delineate criminal is, I
1:32:07 would say, better than
1:32:08 some with the, you might want to consider adding language to the
1:32:13 lesser offense just to encompass
1:32:15 false accusations on a lower level that don’t rise to the
1:32:18 criminal level.
1:32:19 But yeah, I want to consider the proposed changes.
1:32:23 Right.
1:32:24 Good point.
1:32:26 So we know what we’re-
1:32:27 Yeah, can you repeat?
1:32:29 We just want to-
1:32:29 Yeah, we just want to make sure we’re capturing here.
1:32:31 Because we-
1:32:32 So we, the idea on the table is, and thank you, Mr. Thomas, for
1:32:35 suggesting this and Ms.
1:32:36 Wright, false criminal accusation against a staff member.
1:32:40 It’s level five.
1:32:40 Okay, level five.
1:32:41 Mm-hmm.
1:32:41 So that encompasses anything that’s criminal.
1:32:43 Mm-hmm.
1:32:44 And then have a redefinition, according to Mr. Gibbs, based on
1:32:47 that other one that you
1:32:48 just mentioned, being more clearly defined, so that it’s not
1:32:51 vague enough to where they can
1:32:52 capture level fives.
1:32:54 Does that make sense?
1:32:55 And that can be a level four.
1:32:56 Yeah.
1:32:57 Well, I would love that.
1:32:58 Yes?
1:32:59 We have miters and majors who use that language.
1:33:01 That was going to be my suggestion, is that we just say false
1:33:04 accusation against a staff member
1:33:07 major, false accusation against a staff member minor, and then
1:33:12 we define them in-
1:33:13 Perfect.
1:33:13 Yeah, perfect.
1:33:14 Because if you use the word criminal, there may be a really
1:33:19 serious false accusation that’s
1:33:21 not criminal.
1:33:22 Yep.
1:33:23 And you would want to go to a level five.
1:33:25 Yep.
1:33:26 It says the most-
1:33:27 But it’s not criminal.
1:33:28 Love it.
1:33:28 So I think major and minor would be the way to go.
1:33:30 Right.
1:33:31 But we’ll wordsmith it.
1:33:32 Okay.
1:33:33 Thank you.
1:33:34 Now, the next one, same page 13, kind of level fives kind of
1:33:38 stuff, but we had a situation
1:33:40 recently this year where there was a student that was involved
1:33:43 in a behavior off campus
1:33:46 that initiated a very strong cultural fear inside of my schools,
1:33:50 right?
1:33:50 I read inside of here some language, but it wasn’t clearly
1:33:55 defined under level five.
1:33:57 We had said the idea was is that does the actions of a person
1:34:02 off campus initiate the
1:34:05 ability for the school to go ahead and expel that student for
1:34:08 behavior?
1:34:09 I found it somewhere inside of here when I was reading, but it’s
1:34:12 not listed under level.
1:34:14 Go ahead, go ahead.
1:34:16 I found it.
1:34:30 And if it doesn’t disrupt the school environment and something
1:34:34 happens off campus, we cannot discipline
1:34:36 them.
1:34:36 And that’s the cheerleader case from the Supreme Court recently
1:34:39 where they were, you know, F-bombing
1:34:41 the cheerleading coach for not putting them on the varsity cheer
1:34:44 squad.
1:34:45 And they said it happened off campus.
1:34:48 I don’t know what the disruption was on campus over the event,
1:34:51 but the Supreme Court said that’s
1:34:52 protected.
1:34:53 You can’t discipline if it doesn’t encroach on the school
1:34:56 environment.
1:34:57 So if it’s so the felony piece, that’s where I must have read it.
1:35:00 Yeah, yeah.
1:35:01 The felony suspension.
1:35:02 If they’re arrested and charged with a felony, then we can place
1:35:04 them while the felony charges
1:35:06 are pending.
1:35:07 If they plead down to a misdemeanor, then the felony charges go
1:35:10 away.
1:35:10 Our placement goes away.
1:35:11 They come back to school.
1:35:12 But if we find something that would affect the culture of the
1:35:17 school, we’re not, unless
1:35:20 that person’s been arrested for a felony, there’s no way for us
1:35:23 to stop that individual
1:35:25 from coming.
1:35:26 That’s where…
1:35:28 If it’s not disrupting the school environment and they plead
1:35:30 down, there’s nothing we can
1:35:31 do about it.
1:35:32 All right.
1:35:33 What I’d like to do, Mr. Gibbs, is ask if there’s other things
1:35:37 that can affect a school
1:35:38 environment that may not be a felony that may be out there and
1:35:41 see if we have the ability
1:35:43 to expel a kid for behaving that way off of campus.
1:35:46 Does that make sense?
1:35:47 I don’t know that you can blanket that.
1:35:48 It’s going to be more case-by-case.
1:35:49 Okay.
1:35:50 I’ll get with you on that.
1:35:51 Somebody could have, you know, pass a nasty text or social media
1:35:54 post off campus, but
1:35:56 if it never reaches to the school environment in campus, then
1:35:59 you’re not going to be able
1:36:00 to discipline for it.
1:36:01 Well, and if we have a student who is, for example, they’re
1:36:05 arrested for drunk driving,
1:36:08 but while they’re on our campus, they’re doing what they’re
1:36:10 supposed to do, they’re never
1:36:11 a behavior problem, we’re not going to…
1:36:13 Sure.
1:36:14 You know what I mean?
1:36:15 That’s…
1:36:16 And that wasn’t anywhere near what it was.
1:36:18 There’s just stuff that happens off campus that are indicators
1:36:21 that then sends our schools
1:36:22 into frizzies and then we may not or may be able to.
1:36:25 I’ll get with you, Paul, on that.
1:36:27 All right.
1:36:28 Page 17, we crossed off threat to school, staff, or student, but
1:36:32 then I didn’t see it anywhere
1:36:34 else.
1:36:35 Is there…
1:36:36 That’s what he just talked to us about, they’re moving it all to
1:36:41 TRE.
1:36:41 Yes.
1:36:42 Okay.
1:36:43 Assess.
1:36:44 Cool.
1:36:45 Okay.
1:36:46 All right.
1:36:49 On page 18, if you go, it says Grand Theft, $750 or greater.
1:36:59 Cell phones are like 400 bucks, 500 bucks.
1:37:01 No, they’re not.
1:37:02 Have you bought a cell phone recently?
1:37:03 Listen, I did for my daughter and it was…
1:37:05 They’re like $1,500.
1:37:06 I’m like, they’re like $1,500, so…
1:37:08 Why you got to open me up for what I buy my daughter?
1:37:10 Okay.
1:37:11 Why you got to pick on me?
1:37:15 Listen, just because you all buy your kids $1,500 phones doesn’t
1:37:19 mean I do.
1:37:20 Anyways, here’s the question.
1:37:22 The question is, is when we define the theft of a cell phone, do
1:37:25 we define it as the value
1:37:27 of that phone being new or the value of that phone being used on
1:37:31 a, you know, how do we
1:37:33 do that?
1:37:34 How does that happen?
1:37:35 I believe it goes by retail value, sir.
1:37:38 Okay.
1:37:39 And then, do we want to keep Grand Theft at 750, is that defined
1:37:43 by statute or do we want
1:37:44 to drop that down?
1:37:45 That is defined by Sessor.
1:37:46 All right.
1:37:47 So, I believe last year, Mr. Seaton, they introduced a new code
1:37:50 and it’s a level two of a larceny
1:37:52 theft less than 750.
1:37:55 It was defined and created a code for that.
1:37:57 Okay.
1:37:58 All right.
1:37:59 Easy enough.
1:38:00 I just, you know, somebody steals $700 worth of stuff, they
1:38:02 could wipe out an entire supply
1:38:03 closet and then, you know, they’re not.
1:38:05 Which, by the way, you can be suspended for that.
1:38:07 Right.
1:38:09 All right.
1:38:10 Page 19.
1:38:11 Weapons possession.
1:38:12 A couple of times when I was a teacher and a couple of times
1:38:14 since I’ve been a board member,
1:38:15 a student gets caught with a pocket knife from fishing or
1:38:18 something like that.
1:38:19 Is that still considered a weapon and they still get expelled
1:38:22 automatically?
1:38:22 No.
1:38:23 It’s, they specifically define knife blade links for weapons, so
1:38:27 you got to take the knife
1:38:29 and you got to run it through.
1:38:30 Okay, perfect.
1:38:31 Just want to make sure.
1:38:32 Do you know what the definite?
1:38:33 Off the top of my head, I couldn’t tell you.
1:38:34 It’s in here.
1:38:35 Okay.
1:38:36 Three inches probably or something.
1:38:37 The knife blade, I believe, is under four inches.
1:38:41 We would define it as a local code of potentially dangerous
1:38:44 object.
1:38:45 Anything the knife blade is over the four inches is defined by
1:38:48 statute 790 as a weapon.
1:38:50 Okay.
1:38:51 Thank you.
1:38:52 That’s good.
1:38:53 I just wanted to make sure.
1:38:54 Thank you.
1:38:55 Thank you for that clarification.
1:38:56 All right.
1:38:57 If you go to page 20.
1:38:58 Get ready.
1:38:59 I’m telling you, man.
1:39:00 We’re going to be here.
1:39:01 I’m telling you.
1:39:02 We just went through.
1:39:03 This was the thing that we did.
1:39:04 All right.
1:39:05 So page 20.
1:39:06 If you read our electronic telecommunication devices, right?
1:39:08 We go first offense, second offense, third offense.
1:39:11 So a kid comes in, says, gets caught, you know, we have those
1:39:15 things.
1:39:16 And the second one is, is we just say, we got to call the parent
1:39:19 the second time, write
1:39:20 another referral, and confiscate it until the parent must come
1:39:23 in and get it.
1:39:24 And then the third time, we have the parent-guardian conference,
1:39:27 discipline referral, loss of cell phone
1:39:29 privileges, which I don’t even know what that is, may assign
1:39:33 additional corrective strategies.
1:39:35 There’s no teeth in there, right?
1:39:37 I’ve seen other districts, I’ve seen other districts move to
1:39:40 serious suspensions and expulsions
1:39:43 based on the behavior of the cell phones.
1:39:46 Being the fact that it’s such a large number of referrals for us,
1:39:51 I would say that my concern
1:39:53 is, is that I would like to put more teeth into this thing.
1:39:57 I don’t know about you guys, but my, I remember making a motion
1:40:00 and we were three, two, or two,
1:40:02 three on banning cell phones completely inside of our schools.
1:40:04 You and I were there, I think.
1:40:06 We were, it’s okay, but it was a, it was a big jump.
1:40:08 It was the middle of the year.
1:40:09 It was a lot of stuff.
1:40:12 What did the, did the discipline committee bring up anything in
1:40:16 here about putting more
1:40:17 teeth into it for people?
1:40:19 Like I, we just, it was one of our biggest referrals, you know?
1:40:23 What’s the teeth?
1:40:24 I mean, they can, I mean, I hear you, you’re wanting to make it
1:40:27 be tough on crime, but these,
1:40:29 loss of cell phone privileges means they don’t get to have a
1:40:32 cell phone at school.
1:40:33 Yeah.
1:40:35 And assigned additional corrective strategies could be anything
1:40:37 else because if it’s a repeat
1:40:38 offense, you get to bump up.
1:40:39 So they could be like suspended and, and move forward.
1:40:43 So I’m not sure what more teeth, what, what’s the teeth that you’re
1:40:46 looking for?
1:40:47 Because I think it’s already in there.
1:40:48 And it says any violation beyond a third offense may result in
1:40:51 out of school suspension up to
1:40:54 a 10 day suspension.
1:40:55 It goes on pending placement and alternative setting that does
1:40:58 say after the third, so it’s
1:40:59 like.
1:41:00 Well, I’d like to just suspend them for 10 days or nine days in
1:41:04 the third offense.
1:41:05 Okay.
1:41:06 I mean, I, I, I’ll be honest with you guys, or I’d like to ban
1:41:08 the cell phones completely
1:41:09 in the schools.
1:41:10 One or the other.
1:41:11 I mean, Orange County moved to it.
1:41:12 I don’t think this is a one or the other because this is still
1:41:15 going to be here regardless
1:41:16 of, there’s still going to be a, saying we’re banning them, it’s
1:41:20 not going to make them go
1:41:21 away.
1:41:22 So we’re still going to have to deal with what are going to be
1:41:23 the consequences if they violate
1:41:24 it.
1:41:25 It’s two different conversations, but this is what are we going
1:41:28 to do?
1:41:29 I, I see teeth, you know, in, in each of these, I’m not sure.
1:41:37 So I would, so my teeth would be that I would like to turn that
1:41:40 third offense into a stronger,
1:41:43 this will happen.
1:41:44 Okay.
1:41:45 That’s my suggestion.
1:41:46 I need board approval.
1:41:47 And then right now I cannot make the motion, but I might do it
1:41:51 tonight to just ban the cell
1:41:52 phones completely in the schools for next year.
1:41:55 That’s what I would like.
1:41:56 I just, this has been a complete situation where we’ve seen
1:41:59 referrals going through the
1:42:01 roof.
1:42:02 And I think that that would help our teachers and our
1:42:04 administrators tremendously.
1:42:06 I’ve had a lot of parents that have come out.
1:42:07 So on this, I would like the third offense to be stronger.
1:42:11 And I would suggest a, whatever you think in those regards to a
1:42:15 five to 10 day suspension
1:42:17 or something like that, but it should be written in there that
1:42:19 that’s what’s going to happen.
1:42:21 Because I don’t think if I look at that, that I’m a parent that
1:42:23 I’m going to be too concerned
1:42:24 about my kid consistently doing it.
1:42:26 And this is a kid that’s shown up three freaking times in the
1:42:29 school and gotten busted doing
1:42:30 something with their cell phones.
1:42:32 And we were serious about making a thing against the cell phones.
1:42:34 So that’s all.
1:42:35 I’ll go back to what Mr. Trent said is, is that enforcement
1:42:37 problem.
1:42:39 Well, if they’re suspended, they’re not having to enforce it
1:42:42 because they’re not in the school.
1:42:43 Mr. Chair?
1:42:44 Yeah.
1:42:45 I understand where Mr. Susan’s going and don’t disagree.
1:42:50 Just, I think it’s the problem where we land on the, what the
1:42:54 penalty might be, but I, I would
1:42:55 suggest maybe cons or at least for consideration, moving the
1:42:58 third offense action to the second
1:43:01 offense, and then changing any violation beyond a second offense
1:43:06 that may result will result in an out of school suspension and
1:43:09 define whatever that is, whether it’s three days or I don’t, I
1:43:12 mean,
1:43:12 I personally think 10 days or that, that big of a jump is, is
1:43:16 pretty harsh, but sure, you know, a three day suspension for,
1:43:20 for, you know, beyond a second violation for a third violation,
1:43:25 I think that’s reasonable.
1:43:26 Yeah.
1:43:28 I think that to me, I’d be willing to do that.
1:43:30 That is correct.
1:43:31 I wouldn’t do that.
1:43:32 Well, I mean, this was one of the topics that we brought up on
1:43:35 the offsite was we, as a board, we want to revisit, we wanted to
1:43:39 revisit the cell phone policy and actually do a little research
1:43:44 and have some research done on how tough some of the policies
1:43:48 have become, not only in Florida, but around the, around the
1:43:51 country.
1:43:52 I mean, we could probably take some time and at a workshop.
1:43:57 I know it’s a time.
1:43:58 Before next school year.
1:43:59 We have that policy on the, on this workshop, if we can ever get
1:44:01 done with this part.
1:44:02 That’s, that, that’s right.
1:44:03 So we, we had, we had talked about really making a stand on the
1:44:07 cell phone.
1:44:08 Yep.
1:44:09 So if this is the day that we’re going to talk about.
1:44:11 No, I think it’s inappropriate to bring up such a heavy topic.
1:44:14 That’s a big topic.
1:44:15 Like that.
1:44:16 I would like to try to put it on a workshop, possibly talk about
1:44:18 it soon, look at some of the ins and outs of it, do an
1:44:20 evaluation.
1:44:21 If Los Angeles public schools can ban cell phones completely, we
1:44:24 can do the same thing.
1:44:25 We got to think of the feasibility.
1:44:26 We can do it.
1:44:27 It’s just what, what is right or wrong.
1:44:28 Options.
1:44:29 We can do it and lower our, our referrals, but that’s me saying
1:44:31 that hypothetically, if we can do that, Dr. Indell, what do you
1:44:34 think?
1:44:34 Just want to remind you the policy is already that cell phones
1:44:37 are not to be used during instructional time.
1:44:39 I mean, we already have that.
1:44:41 We’ve theoretically already banned cell phones.
1:44:43 Yeah, no, I remember that.
1:44:44 Well, though, there is that, that one caveat that the approval
1:44:47 of the principal allow, they’re allowed to use it for
1:44:49 instructional.
1:44:50 I understand.
1:44:51 But when we say other districts have banned cell phones, they
1:44:53 probably have the exact same rule in place.
1:44:55 Well, they banned them completely.
1:44:56 The only difference between what we’re doing, what some other
1:44:59 districts are doing is they’re not allowing them at lunch in
1:45:01 between passing periods.
1:45:02 We are only at the high school level.
1:45:04 It’s my understanding.
1:45:05 Right.
1:45:06 Allowing them during passing periods and at lunch.
1:45:08 So if the board wants to make the decision to change that,
1:45:11 because that’s where we went a couple years ago, then that, that
1:45:14 is a conversation that we can have.
1:45:15 But we’re, we’re not, you know, I agree with Dr. Indell.
1:45:19 So we’re not doing anything different except for some of them
1:45:21 are doing that lunchtime passing period thing, which means now
1:45:24 that our administrators are, are policing that time as well.
1:45:29 Well, we, so here’s, and what I would say to that is this.
1:45:32 We made this with the assumption.
1:45:34 And I remember the, I remember the conversation.
1:45:36 We said, we wouldn’t go all the way because we want to give the
1:45:39 opportunity for the individuals to be able to enforce it inside
1:45:43 their classrooms.
1:45:44 If you walk through your middle, your high schools right now,
1:45:47 you have a problem with some teachers are not enforcing it.
1:45:50 The last five minutes, sometimes last 10 minutes of a classroom,
1:45:53 you see the kids on their cell phones.
1:45:55 And they shouldn’t be doing that.
1:45:56 That’s an enforcement problem.
1:45:57 That’s not a policy problem.
1:45:58 Okay.
1:45:59 And the, the problem with this is this, is that regardless of
1:46:02 where we put that, that is occurring.
1:46:05 And so you have some teachers that are just like holding a line,
1:46:08 trying to hold the line on the cell phones and other end of the
1:46:11 teachers who are not able to hold the line and they, they let it
1:46:15 go.
1:46:15 So an administrator is forced now to deal with a teacher telling
1:46:18 them that this teacher is not doing it and all these other
1:46:20 things.
1:46:21 If we were to remove them from the classrooms and from the
1:46:23 schools, it makes sure that nobody would be able to be a part of
1:46:27 the, would have that cell phone out at any time.
1:46:30 And it slows it down because kids are walking into class and
1:46:32 stuff like that.
1:46:33 So that’s not the hill I’ll die on.
1:46:35 I love your recommendation, Mr. Thomas, to move third to second
1:46:38 and put that there.
1:46:39 I’d like to hear input from other board members.
1:46:41 I, I’d support that.
1:46:42 Move three to two and, and do a three day suspension if they’re
1:46:45 caught with it again.
1:46:46 I support Mr. Thomas’s idea.
1:46:48 I have no problem with it.
1:46:49 You’re good.
1:46:50 Ms. Campbell, you want me to say something?
1:46:51 I, I think if the enforcement is done the way that it’s supposed
1:46:53 to be done, that these levels are, I’m fine with the levels the
1:46:57 way they are.
1:46:57 Okay.
1:46:58 All right.
1:46:59 Thank you.
1:47:00 So you got that?
1:47:01 So we have a direction.
1:47:02 Yep.
1:47:03 Yeah.
1:47:04 Okay.
1:47:05 All right.
1:47:06 Page 21.
1:47:07 Tobacco use.
1:47:08 Go through.
1:47:09 So a kid is caught on campus.
1:47:10 Cigarettes or other forms of tobacco, not limited to electronic.
1:47:13 Okay.
1:47:14 All that stuff.
1:47:15 We call the parent.
1:47:16 We write a referral in focus and out of school suspension one
1:47:20 day.
1:47:21 Right.
1:47:22 But we have kids that are smoking and then it gets caught a
1:47:25 second day as a parent teacher conference one to three out of
1:47:28 school suspension.
1:47:30 Has this, I would like to move this up because I feel like
1:47:35 somebody that’s smoking tobacco is just as bad to me in a vape.
1:47:40 We’re trying to shut them down, right?
1:47:41 Uh-huh.
1:47:42 How many students are we catching smoking tobacco as opposed to
1:47:45 marijuana?
1:47:46 Do you guys have that readily available?
1:47:47 Certainly.
1:47:48 I don’t.
1:47:49 I mean our tobacco encompasses vapes so it is a significantly
1:47:53 high number.
1:47:54 Okay.
1:47:55 But we can research that number for you, sir.
1:47:57 I don’t know if the board wants to.
1:47:59 I would love to kind of move those up too just like Mr. Thomas
1:48:05 was saying.
1:48:06 I feel that like you should have at least that level two as the
1:48:10 level one and the level three as the level two.
1:48:13 I mean here’s the problem.
1:48:15 Here’s what I see.
1:48:16 Is that if I’m inside of there using, there’s so many different
1:48:19 materials that are considered tobacco now that are actually like
1:48:24 drugs.
1:48:25 And the reason that you cannot catch them as drugs is because
1:48:28 they’re not popping derivatively as THC or something else.
1:48:31 So a kid is actually going in there utilizing this other form
1:48:35 which we are defining as tobacco because it can’t be defined as
1:48:38 the drug.
1:48:39 And it’s actually popping as tobacco.
1:48:41 So the kids are actually using this way to get an avenue to get
1:48:44 around the other side if I’m making sense.
1:48:47 If you go into a vape shop, there’s a hundred different vapes, a
1:48:50 hundred different things.
1:48:52 And none of them are drugs but they’re utilizing different forms
1:48:55 of things that are giving that same feeling to the kid.
1:48:59 Under our guidelines, we’re using only that would be defined as
1:49:04 tobacco.
1:49:05 And I just think that it should be stronger.
1:49:07 That’s my feeling.
1:49:08 Board, do you want to weigh in?
1:49:10 I’m going to reiterate my thought from earlier, which is, I don’t
1:49:13 like the, it feels a little bit like flying by the seat of your
1:49:18 pants.
1:49:19 I’m just going to reiterate, except for the changes that we made,
1:49:22 we, all the changes we’re making right now, we’re asking to be
1:49:26 changed without getting any feedback from the people that will
1:49:33 make us feel more confident in our decision making.
1:49:35 And how, how big of a problem these are, what is, how well is
1:49:38 what we’re doing working?
1:49:39 I, I don’t like this way of decision making and I’m just going
1:49:43 to reiterate that.
1:49:44 Um, so except for those level four or five things, because we,
1:49:47 that was a change that we made as a board with the alternative
1:49:49 schools.
1:49:50 I, I’m, I’m uncomfortable with the changes that have been
1:49:54 mentioned, uh, without having that kind of data and feedback
1:49:57 from the people who are on the ground.
1:49:59 So I would, I would say in a response to that, that I am not
1:50:02 flying by the seat of my pants.
1:50:04 I have been to the vapes doors.
1:50:06 I have looked at what is available out there.
1:50:08 I have talked to a lot of our teachers, a lot of our
1:50:10 administrative staff, and I’ve spent a lot of time on this.
1:50:14 I’ve gone through and identified.
1:50:16 As a board, as a, may just be clever.
1:50:17 As a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, Ms. Campbell, Ms. Campbell,
1:50:19 Ms. Campbell, I would like to finish my conversation.
1:50:20 Why are you interrupting me?
1:50:21 Yeah.
1:50:22 The bottom line is, is that I’ve spent a lot of time on this and
1:50:24 this is the opportunity to talk about where it is.
1:50:26 This hasn’t been an opportunity to talk about this before.
1:50:29 And if you’re smoking tobacco and anything else that might be
1:50:32 there that is not considered a drug, you should be held
1:50:35 accountable a little bit more is all I’m saying.
1:50:36 You’re.
1:50:38 I’m not flying by the seat of my pants.
1:50:39 We’re not letting him get away with anything.
1:50:40 They’re getting.
1:50:41 Ms. Campbell.
1:50:42 Ms. Campbell, can I, I did not disrupt you.
1:50:43 If you can just wait.
1:50:44 That, I’d like to hear the rest of the board weigh in on it.
1:50:47 That’s all.
1:50:48 Just your thoughts.
1:50:49 Ms. Ray.
1:50:50 Am I going first?
1:50:53 All right.
1:50:54 So I don’t, my understanding is that that when they’re caught
1:50:56 with the vapes, they actually are testing them for THC on a
1:50:59 pretty regular basis, which is how we’re finding a lot of those,
1:51:02 those vape pens that way.
1:51:04 As far as like smoking actual cigarettes, I don’t think that’s
1:51:06 really happening so much in schools anymore.
1:51:08 It’s really, it is the vapes.
1:51:09 I mean, for the most part, because it’s, it’s not detected the
1:51:13 same way that, you know, anybody likes a cigarette, you could
1:51:15 smell it within miles away.
1:51:16 It’s, it feels like, but the vaping pens are obviously different.
1:51:20 Um, where I’m at with this, I guess, man, I don’t, this one’s a
1:51:23 tough one for me because kids are kids.
1:51:25 And I’m like, okay, do we, if we move them all up, which looks
1:51:29 like what parent conference, one to three day out of school
1:51:32 suspension for their first offense.
1:51:34 That’s what you’re suggesting.
1:51:35 So the first time they’re caught.
1:51:36 So you’re caught.
1:51:37 Now let me explain one other piece that I didn’t, I forgot to
1:51:40 mention, if I may.
1:51:41 Many of our schools only use one or two bathrooms because the
1:51:44 vaping situation is so bad.
1:51:45 You had indicated, if you had to make an assumption, if you may,
1:51:50 how many tobacco related to drug related vapings are we catching?
1:51:54 Is there a percentage you could just ballpark?
1:51:56 Is it 75 to 25?
1:51:58 Where would you find us at?
1:52:00 I probably would say somewhere near 75 to 25.
1:52:03 We probably approximately have, let’s say a hundred plus like DR
1:52:08 use.
1:52:09 And then you’re probably looking at your, your tobacco TV.
1:52:11 Oh, 75.
1:52:12 Yeah.
1:52:13 You, you have a substantial amount more.
1:52:15 And what I’m, what I’m, the reason that I’m bringing this is, is
1:52:17 that many of my, I have had three students in student
1:52:22 discussions.
1:52:22 One at Kennedy space center and two others that have said that
1:52:26 the vaping is so disgusting and it’s bad.
1:52:29 So if I’m a student that goes and vapes, I can come in, smoke my
1:52:32 vape, get caught.
1:52:33 I’m back two days later.
1:52:34 I can smoke my vape, get caught, come back.
1:52:37 And that is what’s destroying our schools.
1:52:39 So all I’m trying to do is move this up as an opportunity to
1:52:42 show that this is a strong problem.
1:52:45 And I think that it, it’s something that I think we should do.
1:52:47 That’s all.
1:52:48 Can I, can I just, no, I want to, one more thing.
1:52:50 So, you know, the weapons detection devices that we just
1:52:53 installed.
1:52:54 And I know I’m sure I’m going to get some slack for this, but my
1:52:57 understanding is they have the capability to turn the
1:53:00 sensitivity down to be able to detect those vape pins, which
1:53:04 probably would be worth doing.
1:53:06 And maybe I, the logistics of that, and I’m sure I’m looking
1:53:09 right at Mr. Wilson back there.
1:53:11 So I’m sorry for this one.
1:53:12 He’s going, but it’s probably worth doing just to see what
1:53:18 happens.
1:53:19 And see if it ends up picking up a whole bunch of them.
1:53:22 Because what we’re hearing from a lot of our school sites is
1:53:24 that when it comes to vaping, the vapes, they’re finding
1:53:27 creative ways, like they’ll stick it in their empty Stanley.
1:53:29 And, and then, you know, that doesn’t go through the detector.
1:53:32 So they move it around and don’t get caught that way.
1:53:35 So maybe turning the sensitivity down and, and seeing what that
1:53:38 looks like.
1:53:39 Does that stop it?
1:53:40 And do we see a lot, you know, it’s obviously going to see a
1:53:43 huge uptick at first, but then does it drop off afterwards?
1:53:46 I don’t, I guess where I’m at is like, Hey, suspending a kid for
1:53:49 one to three days at a school for the first time that they are
1:53:51 caught with a vape pen.
1:53:52 I don’t necessarily, I don’t think that that’s the right
1:53:54 solution.
1:53:55 But I do think that they need something has to be done.
1:53:58 Vaping is obviously an epidemic when it comes to these kids.
1:54:01 I’m not sure how they’re even getting it.
1:54:03 Don’t you have to be like 18 or I mean, what is it?
1:54:05 21.
1:54:06 Okay.
1:54:07 Mr. Chair.
1:54:08 Oh, okay.
1:54:09 Yeah, go ahead.
1:54:10 Sorry.
1:54:11 Somebody else weighing in on this one.
1:54:12 Yeah, I will.
1:54:13 So I think it’s, there’s several reasons why I support the
1:54:18 concept of making it more, making the punishment greater.
1:54:22 One is just the student health.
1:54:24 And I also know just from my own experience, when I was in
1:54:27 school before vapes and it was smoking, it was, it was
1:54:30 absolutely disgusting.
1:54:31 So from somebody who doesn’t smoke or vape and for these being
1:54:34 minors, I think we’re almost condoning it if we don’t make it a
1:54:37 harsh penalty.
1:54:38 And I know as a parent, I wouldn’t want my, if my child was
1:54:42 caught doing it, number one, I’d want to know about it and I’d
1:54:44 want them to have consequences.
1:54:46 So drug use is level four.
1:54:49 I would not be opposed to having the first offense be a level
1:54:53 three, just for conversation.
1:54:56 All right.
1:54:57 And if I may, just for a fact, I’m sorry, Mr. Trent.
1:55:00 That’s fine.
1:55:01 That second offense is a one to three.
1:55:03 So they can still suspend them for one day.
1:55:05 It’s more about the repeat that I’m trying to get to.
1:55:08 That’s all.
1:55:09 Okay, go ahead.
1:55:10 All right.
1:55:11 So we know we need to get vapes out of schools.
1:55:17 It’s just that simple.
1:55:19 I personally, not that I don’t care what’s in them.
1:55:21 I don’t want the vapes in the schools and we understand that.
1:55:24 Currently, do we, do the SROs, do we give citations for, for the
1:55:30 tobacco?
1:55:31 Do they, I mean, is that a fine?
1:55:34 I believe that’s by municipality.
1:55:37 I’m not sure if that’s.
1:55:38 It is.
1:55:39 It is, right?
1:55:40 We’ve met and Dr. Jenkins and I have met with certain
1:55:44 municipalities and we’ve had this inconsistency
1:55:48 because some say they want to work with that and some say they
1:55:52 don’t.
1:55:53 So we wanted to be consistent.
1:55:54 I wondered how we were, how we were handling that across the
1:55:57 board.
1:55:57 Because I, it’s, it is citation worthy if they’re underage and
1:56:02 they have.
1:56:03 Someone will not give the citation.
1:56:05 I mean, we, we met last year because that was, other places they
1:56:09 do have them, but not here.
1:56:11 Sure.
1:56:12 I mean, that’s a deterrence.
1:56:13 That was one things I had written down.
1:56:15 Um, I, I had written down the opening gate.
1:56:17 That’s right.
1:56:18 And that they could break down the, the, uh, sensitivity to, to,
1:56:23 to have that.
1:56:24 I’m all for, um, upping the deterrence of, of, of vapes.
1:56:30 If it’s, um, you know, multiple day suspension, whatever we need
1:56:33 to get.
1:56:34 I have two kids in school now and it is just, it’s a known fact.
1:56:38 If you talk to students that we don’t go to the bathroom during
1:56:41 passing periods.
1:56:42 Cause it’s just full of kids vaping.
1:56:44 I mean, of course kids say that.
1:56:46 And, um, or we don’t go into that bathroom and you know, this is
1:56:49 the vape bathroom.
1:56:50 And it, it is an issue.
1:56:52 So whatever we can do to make it a deterrent, but if it’s one
1:56:56 day out or one day out, then it’s one day out again.
1:56:59 Um, if, if it’s not increasing anything we can do, I don’t think
1:57:03 this one is, uh, an overreaction by us, but maybe it could have
1:57:07 been before today.
1:57:08 And I apologize for that.
1:57:09 But that’s something that I would prefer, uh, us do is to make
1:57:13 it a major, we, we, we tackled it with the cell phones.
1:57:17 Now we were the issue is the, you know, we basically made them
1:57:21 banned in our classrooms, but it’s enforcement.
1:57:24 So here’s another thing that I think we can do is, uh, up the
1:57:28 deterrent, uh, and, and then rely then on the enforcement of
1:57:31 that as well.
1:57:32 Because I know staffing is an issue at these schools of, it
1:57:34 would be great to have somebody, the adult outside of every
1:57:38 bathroom, but it’s almost impossible to, to have that.
1:57:41 Um, but if we can give them that tool of, uh, you’re, you’re
1:57:45 just not going to be in our schools.
1:57:48 If you’re bringing, you know, vapes into our, our, our schools.
1:57:51 So upping that I’m all for that.
1:57:53 However, you want to make that clear.
1:57:55 And then I would say Ms. Campbell or Ms. Wright, do you want to
1:57:57 have a conversation right now about the detection systems being
1:58:01 turned up?
1:58:02 Maybe you do it on a, maybe you send out an idea.
1:58:07 That’s outside the scope of the student code of conduct.
1:58:09 But I mean, they can do things like just do spot checks.
1:58:11 That way it’s not a burden on schools and just randomly do it.
1:58:14 And the districts and extra support personnel down there to help
1:58:17 them do it on those days.
1:58:18 And last thing I’m going to bring up, and I, this was something
1:58:20 I wasn’t even planning on bringing up, but since we brought up
1:58:23 open gate and all this and where the kids are putting the vapes
1:58:26 was, I had a, a dean at a school said that that would be to, to
1:58:31 explore the wand, you know, on searches for the vapes because of
1:58:35 where they’re putting that.
1:58:36 They’re, they’re, they’re able to pick up the vapes and all
1:58:39 sorts of places, but I didn’t know how we thought about that as
1:58:43 a district.
1:58:44 So when I mentioned that, I was told we had varied opinions on
1:58:52 the wand.
1:58:54 I feel like there was something with, I know, with Major Klein,
1:58:56 and I don’t, I don’t, I would like them to weigh in on that.
1:58:59 But I saw it, someone saw it in use and it worked out perfect.
1:59:02 We have it at Gardendale.
1:59:03 You use the wand at Gardendale?
1:59:05 Yes.
1:59:06 Okay.
1:59:07 So I think it sounds like there’s a majority of the board would
1:59:10 like to sing some kind of a pilot somewhere to just test it to
1:59:13 see if we can catch them.
1:59:14 Yeah.
1:59:16 I mean, that’s probably the best way to start it is start with
1:59:17 one school.
1:59:18 Let’s see what happens when we turn that sensitivity down.
1:59:19 Do we pick up a ton more vapes?
1:59:21 And then if that’s effective of a way to, to stop them, then.
1:59:25 I guess I would defer that to Mr. Wilson about the wands in
1:59:29 schools and poly and that.
1:59:32 And the open gate.
1:59:33 Okay.
1:59:34 But for, for this, we’re seeing that level two would be level
1:59:41 one and level three would be level two.
1:59:45 And then we would add 10 days for level three.
1:59:48 Or whatever is appropriate there.
1:59:49 Yep.
1:59:50 To make it three.
1:59:51 And then I think he had mentioned to move it from two to three
1:59:54 or something like that.
1:59:56 Mr. Thomas, is that what you said?
1:59:57 Level three.
1:59:59 That would give them that ability to do those.
2:00:00 Wow.
2:00:01 Thank you for that, Mr. Thomas.
2:00:02 I missed that.
2:00:03 Can I review that?
2:00:04 Yeah.
2:00:05 And this results in what?
2:00:06 One to three days.
2:00:08 Second offense is four to five.
2:00:11 Four to five.
2:00:12 And then third offense is?
2:00:13 It would be 10 days.
2:00:14 Okay.
2:00:15 You okay?
2:00:16 Well, I’m not okay with that, but that’s what they want.
2:00:20 Okay.
2:00:22 Dr. Rendell, why?
2:00:23 What’s the pushback on that?
2:00:25 I’m okay with going first offense one day out.
2:00:29 Second offense being three days out.
2:00:31 Third offense being five days out.
2:00:33 Hmm.
2:00:34 Well, why is, why would we do that?
2:00:36 What’s the difference between that and doing what we’re doing?
2:00:38 What you just said was the first offense was one to three days.
2:00:40 Yeah.
2:00:41 So you’re going to get three days for your very first offense.
2:00:43 Okay.
2:00:44 And the second offense was going to be how many?
2:00:48 Four to five.
2:00:50 And then the third offense, it’s 10 days.
2:00:55 What?
2:00:57 It’s a lot of missed instruction.
2:00:59 Not if you don’t do it.
2:01:01 I do get what you’re saying though.
2:01:03 Taking out the.
2:01:04 We got it.
2:01:05 We got direction.
2:01:06 We’re good.
2:01:08 Yeah.
2:01:09 I do.
2:01:10 All right.
2:01:11 We got it.
2:01:12 Next one.
2:01:13 If we move to page 39, attendance.
2:01:16 So if you look down here in section five where it says five unexcused
2:01:23 absences, it says refer
2:01:25 the case to the school’s child study team to determine.
2:01:28 And then it says that the child study team finds a pattern and
2:01:30 it says all of those things.
2:01:32 My question is that we contact the parent at three unexcused absences.
2:01:41 And then at five unexcused absences we do that.
2:01:43 But not until they’re at 15 do we tell them that we may send a
2:01:47 letter home explaining that they’re going to be file a complaint
2:01:51 with the civil court juvenile division and all that other stuff.
2:01:54 My question if the board would allow it is that on level the
2:01:57 level where it says the kid has five unexcused absences that we
2:02:02 send a notice to them saying that we may at 15 days file a
2:02:06 complaint with the juvenile division.
2:02:09 It just gives us the ability a warning ahead of time that scares
2:02:12 them a little bit more.
2:02:13 I do know that that shakes some parents into getting them moving
2:02:16 and it might be an opportunity for us to do so.
2:02:19 That’s all.
2:02:21 If the board’s okay with that.
2:02:23 I would support that.
2:02:24 I think the warning that this is what the next step is is very
2:02:26 important.
2:02:27 I had a question for Paul on this one though as far as reporting
2:02:30 to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and that
2:02:34 law.
2:02:35 Is there something that pertains to the age of the student like
2:02:38 that’s only applicable for, I mean obviously only certain
2:02:41 students can drive, but I thought there was something in there
2:02:44 that said once they reach a certain age that that didn’t apply.
2:02:48 That didn’t apply, but I’m not positive so.
2:02:52 I believe it’s a, I’m pretty sure they get a reported list, but
2:02:55 yeah they wouldn’t do anything until they’re at like 14 or 15
2:02:59 when they can get their driver’s license.
2:03:02 They go on that list.
2:03:04 Since we’re on attendance, I will say I have a slight issue with
2:03:08 the language change in the policy.
2:03:10 Okay.
2:03:11 Because you’re excusing absences for personal illness
2:03:16 potentially based on the language for the year.
2:03:20 All right.
2:03:21 So unless they are out for five consecutive days, no doctor
2:03:23 notes needed.
2:03:24 Right.
2:03:25 If there’s 36 weeks in a school year, I can come to school one
2:03:29 day every week and have been in school for 36 days out of the
2:03:34 180 and have no unexcused absences under the way the policy is
2:03:39 written under the proposed changes.
2:03:42 There’s no cap on how many notes or absences a parent can excuse.
2:03:46 Under that you will never have an unexcused absence because
2:03:50 every parent can just say my kid was out and it’s now an excused
2:03:55 absence.
2:03:56 So you might want to consider adding a cap to how many absences
2:04:00 a student can be out on.
2:04:02 Because like I said, we have kids in truancy.
2:04:04 Parents will send a note saying my kid is out and they can
2:04:08 probably get their kid there one day a week.
2:04:11 So if there’s 36 weeks in a school year, you’re going to have
2:04:14 kids attending 36 days, taking your tests, setting your school
2:04:18 grades and your district grades with no education instruction
2:04:22 time.
2:04:22 Can you make a recommendation to staff to bring it back?
2:04:26 My understanding at one point was they could excuse like up to
2:04:28 nine days.
2:04:29 That might be something we want to look at.
2:04:31 It was 10.
2:04:32 10 days.
2:04:33 So I mean you can excuse up to 10 personal illnesses.
2:04:38 Without a medical.
2:04:39 Yeah, without a doctor’s note.
2:04:40 Beyond that, you need doctor’s notes.
2:04:42 I mean at some point that is going to be a chronic illness.
2:04:44 We have a process for declaring a chronic illness that requires
2:04:48 you to be out.
2:04:49 You get your doctor to certify.
2:04:51 Then at that point it goes in their file.
2:04:53 The kid calls the school.
2:04:54 Hey, my kid’s whatever’s acting up.
2:04:57 So they’re not going to be in school.
2:04:59 That’s the proper process for the chronic illness.
2:05:02 If they’re missing that much school, they probably have a
2:05:04 chronic illness and that would be the proper procedure.
2:05:07 Not a I’m excusing all these absences.
2:05:10 But yeah, so you’re going to completely have zero unexcused absences.
2:05:14 If you have an unlimited, I can excuse all these absences.
2:05:17 Mr. Gibbs, just since you’re going to truancy all the time, you
2:05:20 deal with a lot of this stuff.
2:05:22 Can you make some recommendations we could take a look at?
2:05:24 Yeah, I can.
2:05:25 The policy’s going to come up on April 8th for discussion.
2:05:27 So we can talk about it more in depth on changes then.
2:05:30 I’ll try and bring some proposed language to the April 8th work
2:05:32 session.
2:05:33 That would be beautiful.
2:05:34 Okay.
2:05:35 That’s all.
2:05:36 That one section I had.
2:05:38 Let me go make sure that I have a bunch of notes throughout my
2:05:41 thing here depending on the thing.
2:05:42 Hang on just a second.
2:05:43 Okay.
2:05:44 No, more notes.
2:05:45 No, that one is already done.
2:05:47 I have cell phones in the school.
2:05:48 All right.
2:05:49 That’s it.
2:05:50 Let me just make sure I have everything taken care of.
2:05:54 Yes.
2:05:55 I rest.
2:05:56 Okay.
2:05:57 Now.
2:05:58 That’s it.
2:05:59 I’m sorry.
2:06:00 Thank you for all of that.
2:06:01 Okay.
2:06:02 Page one.
2:06:03 No.
2:06:05 Sorry.
2:06:06 Lots of good input.
2:06:07 Thank you so much for everybody so passionately doing this.
2:06:23 Let’s see if we can recall.
2:06:26 Ms. Campbell brought up some really good things about keeping a
2:06:30 couple of those in four, which
2:06:33 Mr. Thomas mentioned improving consistency.
2:06:36 I think that’s our goal is to improve consistency.
2:06:40 And I do believe level fives.
2:06:45 The consistency is this is exactly.
2:06:47 We know what the results going to happen.
2:06:49 There’s a couple of those there that I think could be at the
2:06:54 school level decision making.
2:06:56 And it could possibly, you know, I look at the four ramifications.
2:07:00 There is this kind of four slash five because it could jump into
2:07:04 the same result as a level five.
2:07:06 So I’m okay with keeping those in a little level four.
2:07:10 I don’t know where we were at on those.
2:07:12 We did on the staff member major minor.
2:07:16 So you guys have that, but I just wanted to put that out there.
2:07:19 The, you know, what John had talked about some of the things
2:07:24 that were wanted to move up a little bit.
2:07:27 The forgery, I understand the forgery as an adult because you’re,
2:07:30 you know, you’re potentially taking somebody’s house, you know,
2:07:33 and possessions.
2:07:34 I just think of it as the Epstein clause in schools, you know,
2:07:38 the, the welcome back Cotter thing.
2:07:40 That’s, that’s about the forgery that we’re, we’re looking at at
2:07:42 schools.
2:07:43 So it’s probably, you know, not a big of an issue as, as, as an
2:07:47 adult, you know, in the, the law enforcement out there.
2:07:52 I mean, that’s a major issue.
2:07:53 And I agree with the whole thing of stealing, you know, I was
2:07:57 saying along the lines of, and I don’t know if there’s any given
2:08:00 opportunity for it, but for a student forging the teacher
2:08:03 signature on a doctor.
2:08:03 Or a, uh, that they bring over to the parents or vice versa.
2:08:07 Yeah.
2:08:08 Permission slips.
2:08:09 It’s going to be probably, it’s going to be most, most of those
2:08:11 things, you know, that we’re going to get.
2:08:13 So I don’t know how much of the head we want to cut off for that.
2:08:18 You know, those, those things there, but, um, um, lots of good
2:08:22 discussions, guys, you had so much time and effort that you put
2:08:26 into this.
2:08:26 And I appreciate the one-on-one meetings where we were able to,
2:08:29 uh, uh, you know, put a lot of this out there.
2:08:32 Um, you know, it’s unfortunate that Matt wasn’t able to attend
2:08:36 the one-on-one.
2:08:37 Um, so.
2:08:38 But even if I did, I still would have brought them all.
2:08:40 I, it, and we need those out here for us to discuss stuff.
2:08:42 So not, not yet.
2:08:43 I just make light on that.
2:08:44 So it’s great.
2:08:45 This is why this board works so well together of bringing things
2:08:48 up, um, and us being able to discuss it like this.
2:08:51 So I think you have direction on anything.
2:08:54 Is there anything else anybody wanted to add?
2:08:56 We, we, we want to clarify, I mean, cause we want to get to work.
2:09:00 They’re ready to get to work, but we want to make sure we have
2:09:02 no other questions.
2:09:03 Sure you will.
2:09:04 So can we review shortly the recommendations to make sure we are
2:09:08 clear?
2:09:09 Yes.
2:09:10 There was a lot of discussion.
2:09:11 Right.
2:09:12 Um, just cause a lot of stuff wasn’t actually on this.
2:09:15 So bear with me as I kind of comb through this.
2:09:18 So I’m going to go through these first and then I’ll, I’ll, um,
2:09:21 go through the other ones here.
2:09:22 So, um, I’m just going to go to ones that I saw.
2:09:28 So, um, looking at item two, I believe there was consensus that
2:09:33 removing the language of school board employee
2:09:37 from the physical aggression, uh, code and making sure it’s
2:09:41 clear that, you know, physical aggression on a staff member
2:09:45 shall be considered, you know, a, a level four or five,
2:09:48 depending on the severity of it.
2:09:50 Yes.
2:09:55 Okay.
2:09:56 We’re working.
2:09:57 All right.
2:09:58 Just to clarify.
2:09:59 So basically to incorporate the policy that we already have, or
2:10:01 are you talking about, except for that would be battery.
2:10:04 Yeah, I think it was just-
2:10:06 what you have is battery.
2:10:07 Yeah.
2:10:08 So the language in here, Ms. Campbell, um, had been existing for
2:10:11 several years.
2:10:12 And I think now it’s just maybe closing up that part there to
2:10:15 make sure that there’s, uh, really consistency.
2:10:18 If there’s, uh, any physical contact, aggressive contact made on
2:10:22 a staff member that it’s being coded properly.
2:10:25 Gotcha.
2:10:26 Thank you.
2:10:27 All right.
2:10:28 Uh, false accusation against staff member.
2:10:33 Um, I, if I can try to understand that one, that one was, we
2:10:37 were looking at making a potentially major and minor version of
2:10:41 that.
2:10:41 So we will come back to you all with, uh, some definition
2:10:44 suggested language.
2:10:46 Um, I, I’m not ones that I know that I didn’t have questions.
2:10:52 I might not go through.
2:10:53 So I’m just combing through all these.
2:10:56 I believe there was consensus on the threat to school staff
2:10:59 student, the local code of 118 being, uh, removed and just
2:11:03 keeping with a TRE.
2:11:03 I believe Mr. Thomas, you had mentioned that on the levels
2:11:16 removing, uh, the flexibility of the, the one to three, four to
2:11:21 five, uh, day flexibility on the guidelines.
2:11:24 So right now on a lot of them.
2:11:30 Which number are you on?
2:11:31 The guideline.
2:11:32 What?
2:11:33 Number six.
2:11:34 Is it 16 or is it?
2:11:35 Yeah.
2:11:36 So we’re looking at artifact number one.
2:11:37 So if I’m looking at like, let’s say, um, additional level three
2:11:41 guidelines inciting, give schools the opportunity to use between
2:11:46 one and three days for the first fence of inciting.
2:11:49 Second offense is one to five days.
2:11:51 Third offense is three to five.
2:11:52 So depending on them, there is some flexibility.
2:11:56 And that was there to provide, um, school administrators with
2:12:00 some autonomy to decide based on the, um, specific scenario, how
2:12:04 they wanted to code that.
2:12:06 But we’re asking for specific numbers.
2:12:10 And I, there’s a, that’s a, that’s a, that’s a double-edged
2:12:13 sword, but I was, um, between giving the, the principals some
2:12:17 discretion and being inconsistent, um, with how things go.
2:12:21 And so I just, I think it’s being more defined.
2:12:24 I was suggesting that for the level three that we had, do a
2:12:27 three day out and remove the flexibility one to three days and
2:12:30 just do it three days.
2:12:31 And level four, do five days instead of one to five days out.
2:12:34 Where are you looking?
2:12:35 I’m sorry.
2:12:36 Those are just the general penalties for the levels.
2:12:39 Uh, for the, for the artifact one with the first offense, second
2:12:42 offense, third offense?
2:12:43 Or you’re talking about all the levels.
2:12:45 Oh, it’s over here.
2:12:46 Yes.
2:12:47 Okay.
2:12:48 Blake over here.
2:12:49 No, he’s talking about on this, corrective strategies.
2:12:50 Oh, okay.
2:12:51 No, I, I think that a lot of thoughtful work has been done
2:12:54 through the years for each level of giving a menu choice.
2:12:59 Um, you know, depending on, because it’s such a variety of, you
2:13:04 know, certainly staff could go back and, and we could have them
2:13:08 go through every single one of these behaviors and assign.
2:13:11 But I, I think they’re, I don’t know that that is.
2:13:14 I just, I look at level four and you have the flexibility of one
2:13:17 to five days.
2:13:18 To me, it should be at least if say for instance, level three is
2:13:22 one to three days, level four should be four to five days.
2:13:26 Instead it shouldn’t be.
2:13:27 They shouldn’t overlap.
2:13:28 You’re right.
2:13:29 Exactly.
2:13:30 I want to look at physical aggression.
2:13:31 I mean, the first offense, it’s parent contact one day in school
2:13:34 suspension, stay away contract.
2:13:36 And then, I mean, you’re also, then we now have parent
2:13:39 conference and one to three days in school suspension.
2:13:42 So it’s almost the same, same punishment for level one and two
2:13:45 or first offense.
2:13:46 Sorry.
2:13:47 And second offense.
2:13:48 Okay.
2:13:49 Same as verbal.
2:13:50 That’s yeah.
2:13:51 I, I don’t disagree with you, Mr. Thomas.
2:13:53 I think honestly it needs to be clearly defined and not, not a
2:13:57 variation of days.
2:13:58 I like it too.
2:13:59 I think why it’s there is that first offense may not result in a
2:14:03 suspension at all.
2:14:05 Right.
2:14:06 So then the second offense now, in addition to other things, it
2:14:09 could, it could be a suspension.
2:14:11 It could be a suspension.
2:14:12 I’m just going to point you guys out because I’m sitting next to
2:14:14 him.
2:14:14 What Mr. Thomas is looking at is the level.
2:14:16 He’s looking at these pages right here and saying there should
2:14:21 be fewer options.
2:14:23 Correct?
2:14:24 Mr. Thomas, can you show us where, what page are you on, Mr.
2:14:28 Thomas?
2:14:28 We’re looking at.
2:14:29 15, 16, 17, and 18, and 19.
2:14:33 The level one through level five.
2:14:34 Okay.
2:14:35 That’s where I was.
2:14:36 I am opposed to that.
2:14:37 I think because we have such a variety.
2:14:40 We could have 25 levels.
2:14:42 And because we have such a variety of.
2:14:47 Page 15, 16, 17.
2:14:49 And some of it, like, so on a level three, it’s in school
2:14:52 suspension.
2:14:53 Level two also has in school suspension.
2:14:55 Some schools don’t have the ability to really do in school
2:14:57 suspension well.
2:14:58 So that’s not something that they utilize very often, especially
2:15:01 elementary schools.
2:15:02 Because sometimes it turns into a play day.
2:15:06 So they’re like, we’re not going to hardly do any in school suspensions
2:15:09 because we don’t
2:15:09 have an in school suspension room.
2:15:11 And where they end up having to do it, it’s not a good place.
2:15:14 And so I, and some of it’s because you’re bumping up from one to
2:15:17 the next.
2:15:18 I, I think those are good as they are.
2:15:22 Like I said, a lot of thoughtful work has been done through the
2:15:26 years to give this.
2:15:27 And I hear you about trying to make it fair and consistent.
2:15:31 Um, those are things we have to work on.
2:15:34 Fair, consistent.
2:15:35 And then the, well, one thing it doesn’t, and maybe, you know,
2:15:38 maybe there’s logic behind
2:15:40 it, but having it overlap the way that it does the, you know,
2:15:42 the one to three days and
2:15:44 then one to five days.
2:15:45 Well, I think what Ms. Campbell brought up makes a lot of sense
2:15:48 because there are schools
2:15:49 out there that don’t have that in school suspension set up.
2:15:52 So first defense was the in school suspension and it didn’t work.
2:15:55 Second offense.
2:15:56 Now we are going to go to the, uh, suspension.
2:15:58 There are schools that don’t have that.
2:16:00 So they’re going to suspend one day the first time, the second
2:16:03 day.
2:16:03 So they, they’re suspension, suspension.
2:16:05 Whereas you kind of need that beginning suspension on some
2:16:08 instances where they don’t have the
2:16:10 ability to send them into an, uh, an in school suspension, so to
2:16:13 speak.
2:16:14 So that’s kind of why.
2:16:15 And that’s, you have for us say a level three, somebody has, and
2:16:18 then maybe it’s fine the
2:16:20 way it is with the principal having that discretion, but they
2:16:22 can give your son an in school suspension,
2:16:24 and they can give my son a, a three day out.
2:16:27 Correct.
2:16:28 That’s the problem.
2:16:29 And that’s.
2:16:30 And that could be a problem.
2:16:31 To me, that’s.
2:16:32 So that’s enforcement.
2:16:33 Inconsistency, because that’s too much discretion.
2:16:34 That’s, that’s, I can see having some flexibility, you know,
2:16:37 based on the circumstances, but I was just, my, my intention was
2:16:41 to bring it up to make it look, just tighten it up a little bit
2:16:43 to make it more consistent.
2:16:44 I agree.
2:16:45 Do we do audits of that kind of thing?
2:16:48 Yes.
2:16:49 We do at the school level.
2:16:51 Uh, we do.
2:16:52 So we have existing reports that you can run.
2:16:55 Uh, that’s a mismatch.
2:16:56 Uh, the issue we, a lot of times we see of that report, Ms.
2:16:59 Campbell, is that we have multiple corrective actions that live
2:17:02 in different levels.
2:17:03 So sometimes the report, even though it’s constantly vetted,
2:17:06 sometimes can throw a, um, an air and say, well, there’s a mismatch.
2:17:10 Well, technically suspension lives in level two, level three,
2:17:13 level four, level five.
2:17:14 Right.
2:17:15 So it might throw a mismatch and it’s a constant, like, uh, caretaking
2:17:20 of this report.
2:17:21 I mean, it is a useful tool because it does catch a lot, but
2:17:24 there are still sometimes because we have so many corrective
2:17:28 actions that overlap on multiple levels.
2:17:30 It’s sometimes it’s, it’s very difficult to follow.
2:17:33 And I also agree that because we don’t, every school does not
2:17:37 have the same thing.
2:17:39 You can’t just say three days if I don’t have in school
2:17:42 suspension because I can’t afford that.
2:17:44 You know, I don’t have the funding for it, but then another
2:17:46 school, they do have the funding for it.
2:17:48 So if we say three days, but then another school out of school
2:17:51 suspension, but then another school has in school suspension, it,
2:17:55 I think until we be consistent, you do need that range until we
2:18:01 can fund.
2:18:01 And so can you clarify why the penalty would be the from in
2:18:05 school suspension all the way up to three days out?
2:18:09 It may be one day.
2:18:10 I’m just, you know, that’s why the range.
2:18:11 I’m just saying that there’s a huge disparity between that, that
2:18:14 if my, you know, if my, the principal doesn’t like my son for
2:18:17 whatever reason, for whatever reason, I could be, my kid, my son
2:18:20 could be penalized the three days and somebody else, your son
2:18:24 could only get an in school suspension.
2:18:26 I find a disparity that you’re, you’re getting in school
2:18:30 suspension and I’m not allowed because I don’t have the funding
2:18:34 for it.
2:18:35 So that’s where the discrepancy, so that’s why there’s so much
2:18:38 flexibility.
2:18:39 If we were to supply everybody secondary with, I’m just saying,
2:18:43 in school suspension personnel, then you can say for the first
2:18:46 offense, this is what’s going to happen.
2:18:49 For the second offense, but because you have that variance of
2:18:52 some schools do have it and some schools don’t, like you said,
2:18:56 there’s a software, they’re doing a progression.
2:18:57 You get one day of out of school suspension, you know, and it
2:19:00 just depends.
2:19:01 Or remove in school suspension altogether.
2:19:05 Right.
2:19:06 Yeah.
2:19:07 That, because then you can either, and you give them the option
2:19:10 on the first one.
2:19:11 I support you, John.
2:19:12 Yeah, I support Mr. Thomas with this one.
2:19:14 So we just, so are we just making just the days instead of the
2:19:19 range?
2:19:20 Are we agreeing to just say one day?
2:19:23 I mean, three days.
2:19:24 No.
2:19:25 He’s talking about an overhaul of this plan.
2:19:28 Just to be honest, you are talking about an overhaul that
2:19:30 basically says for every, I mean, this is what it potentially
2:19:34 could look like.
2:19:35 To really get down to what you’re doing is every behavior having
2:19:39 this chart, and if this is behavior, this is what you’re going
2:19:42 to do, and this behavior, this is what you’re going to do.
2:19:45 That’s an overhaul of this process.
2:19:47 Or the range is not being so, so drastic.
2:19:52 And I’d like to hear Dr. Rendell’s opinion too, because
2:19:55 obviously he’s, I know he’s based on his experience.
2:19:58 I actually like the tables, the way they’re set up right now.
2:20:04 I think if you want to do some things to say, like for example,
2:20:08 if you’re looking at level three, you can go anywhere from a
2:20:12 detention to an out of school suspension up to five days.
2:20:16 That seems like a wide range.
2:20:19 Like, whoa, you could do this and one student could get a
2:20:22 detention and the other could get out of school suspension for
2:20:25 five days.
2:20:26 I’ve never really seen that happen.
2:20:29 You have the range because not every situation is the same, but
2:20:34 you’re going to deal with each situation the same.
2:20:39 So if two kids were caught leaving school without permission,
2:20:46 level three, you’re not going to give one a detention and one a
2:20:49 suspension.
2:20:50 You’re going to give them the same.
2:20:52 But you have this range because these behaviors is a wide range
2:20:56 of these behaviors.
2:20:57 And there’s a wide range of severity within the behavior.
2:21:00 So that’s why you’re given the building level leadership the
2:21:04 flexibility to choose the consequence that they think is most
2:21:08 appropriate.
2:21:09 There’s ranges.
2:21:10 Do you run into, based on your experience, the difference
2:21:13 between principles?
2:21:14 So one principle will do a detention and the other one, I’m
2:21:17 being drastic, but we’ll do the five days out and there’s that
2:21:21 kind of–
2:21:22 Never seen a range quite like that.
2:21:24 I mean, obviously, every human being is an individual.
2:21:27 So there are going to be differences.
2:21:29 I think Mrs. Campbell’s right.
2:21:32 If you want to kind of tighten these up a little bit, well, not
2:21:36 a little bit, tighten these up a lot or make this look a lot
2:21:38 different, you’re going to have to change the whole chart.
2:21:41 You’re going to have to say, for bullying, you’re getting this.
2:21:44 For counterfeit, you’re getting this.
2:21:45 For electronic transmission, electronic telecommunication device
2:21:48 minor, you’re getting this.
2:21:50 So that’s– we can’t do that between now and the end of this
2:21:57 year.
2:21:58 So I would say if the board direction is to go to more of a
2:22:05 specific matrix, you know, you skip, you get this.
2:22:09 And that way it’s– you should get more consistency that way,
2:22:14 then we can work on next year’s code of conduct to look like
2:22:17 that.
2:22:18 But this is, you know, everybody’s been trained on this.
2:22:21 This is what we’ve got.
2:22:22 The committee did all of its work.
2:22:24 I wouldn’t want to make those changes now.
2:22:27 I’m not against that.
2:22:29 I think, you know, again, if we’re trying to get more consistent,
2:22:32 the less options we give, the better.
2:22:35 But I think we’re too late in the game for this year for that.
2:22:38 Just a real follow-up question on the most effective school
2:22:40 districts that you are aware of, the most successful ones, the
2:22:44 highest performing ones.
2:22:46 Do they have– Howard, do you have any– do they have any commonality
2:22:49 among their discipline?
2:22:51 I wouldn’t be able to say which ones were more higher performing
2:22:57 than others.
2:22:58 But I will tell you this type of chart is more common.
2:23:01 You know, having ranges is more common.
2:23:06 So–
2:23:07 Well, I appreciate that.
2:23:08 But I mean, I think it might be– again, we might be too far in
2:23:13 the process to change this.
2:23:15 For this coming year.
2:23:18 The other thing is we need to probably do a little research
2:23:23 during this year if we want to see what is the variance.
2:23:27 Is there really a variance?
2:23:29 Like if everybody that does skips leaves campus without
2:23:32 permission, are they all getting the same thing?
2:23:35 If they’re all getting the same thing, then we don’t need to
2:23:37 change this.
2:23:38 If they’re not all getting the same thing, then yeah, we
2:23:40 probably need to change this.
2:23:41 My intention certainly wasn’t to rewrite the whole policy or
2:23:44 upset the apple cart.
2:23:45 And I appreciate all the work that the stakeholders put into it
2:23:48 and the staff and you, Pam, and you and your team.
2:23:51 So certainly that was not my intention.
2:23:53 Just my only intention out of those comments were to try to
2:23:56 tighten it up where there wasn’t quite as big a disparity.
2:23:59 You know, flexibility, you know, having discretion is fine, but
2:24:03 it’s maybe– so having a set number may not be the answer.
2:24:06 I don’t disagree with that.
2:24:07 Well, I think, again, when you look at the chart, you can say a
2:24:10 level three offense can get anything from an extended detention
2:24:16 to five days out.
2:24:17 That seems to me like very direct.
2:24:19 Seems like a pretty wide range.
2:24:20 That’s a huge.
2:24:21 I would– well, I want to say bet, you know, heavily, but I
2:24:26 haven’t seen that much of a wide range for the same offense.
2:24:32 Typically, if you do this, you’re going to get this.
2:24:34 If you do this, you’re going to get this.
2:24:36 Well, if that– and that’s what we typically have, why don’t we
2:24:38 just have that as our– what the–
2:24:39 Yeah.
2:24:40 I’m not opposed to it.
2:24:42 Just probably too late to change this one.
2:24:44 Yeah.
2:24:45 And the goal.
2:24:47 You had–
2:24:48 The team, the discipline work group, they’ve had conversation
2:24:55 and I’ve had with individual board members that this was just
2:24:59 the initial, like putting it in chart format, just to see, you
2:25:03 know, this year, but the goal would be if it’s the willingness
2:25:07 of the board for us to–
2:25:08 it would have worked for us to do a sample out, you know, of
2:25:12 having each progression, each one of those be progressed on from
2:25:16 level one to level three for each item.
2:25:19 But it is a big undertaking.
2:25:20 It’s not something that can happen, but we would– they already
2:25:24 know that there’s a possibility that we would be moving to that
2:25:28 if that’s the willingness of the board.
2:25:31 And John, if I can add, this is something that– just add to
2:25:35 your list when you’re out there visiting schools and talking to
2:25:39 deans and principals is, you know, what are their thoughts?
2:25:42 Has this held them back?
2:25:44 Would they be– would they welcome more defined options?
2:25:48 I mean, I’ve been out there where there’s– there’s some
2:25:51 communities that are very thankful that they have the options,
2:25:55 you know, where they don’t want to send a kid home for three
2:25:58 days.
2:25:59 They’d rather have them in a in-school suspension.
2:26:01 And so I don’t want to get into– at least they’re getting lunches
2:26:05 and breakfasts and stuff to keep them there.
2:26:07 But, you know, in other instances, no, they can– they can be
2:26:10 gone for two days.
2:26:11 You know, it’s a whole– maybe we’re 72 miles up and down, left
2:26:14 and right.
2:26:15 You know, each individual community will handle things a little
2:26:19 differently.
2:26:20 So I don’t– I think we welcome that flexibility in some of
2:26:24 these areas.
2:26:25 But that is something that we should probably, you know,
2:26:27 throughout this year, you know, ask community members, ask deans,
2:26:31 ask teachers, ask parents, you know, that type of thing.
2:26:34 And I’m not trying to create a lot of extra work, and I’m the
2:26:37 new guy, so I’ll use that excuse for the next year or so.
2:26:41 Yeah.
2:26:42 But the one thing I would just say, I would be very interested
2:26:44 in just knowing what some of the other districts that are high
2:26:47 performing–
2:26:48 Yeah, very good.
2:26:49 –do, and they’re similar, like Seminole and some other ones
2:26:51 that are similar to us.
2:26:52 And we’ve already pulled that information back in November and
2:26:57 looking at some of what they’re doing with charts.
2:27:00 And some are using the same charts, but then some are actually
2:27:05 have charted out their whole discipline consequences with, you
2:27:11 must do this.
2:27:12 So we’ve seen it very structured, and we’ve seen some that are
2:27:16 similar to this.
2:27:17 So we’ve had conversations– we’ve already had this conversation,
2:27:21 and we were going to bring something.
2:27:23 But we just– it’s just time consuming to make sure that we
2:27:26 bring a good product.
2:27:28 So if that’s the– you know, we’ll do some more research, and if
2:27:31 you want us to pursue doing the chart, we will pursue that.
2:27:36 And just to– I think, you know, I’ve altered my opinion a
2:27:38 little bit.
2:27:39 I just think we should tighten it up a little bit, the ranges of–
2:27:41 my personal opinion.
2:27:43 Okay.
2:27:44 Just not quite so broad.
2:27:45 Okay.
2:27:46 Thank you.
2:27:47 Sorry about the monopoly of time here.
2:27:49 Let’s see, let’s see.
2:27:50 Let’s see.
2:27:54 The direction of the board on that.
2:27:55 So when we’re looking at the levels, can we kind of remove some
2:27:59 of the flexibility of .
2:28:08 Barring my stuff that we already got board approval with.
2:28:10 He’s kind of doing this broad stroke, so mine still stays.
2:28:13 But whatever he says he wants to do, he’s going in the direction.
2:28:18 I’m good with keep– where we are right now, just I think that
2:28:20 we should do some further investigations and research for how–
2:28:24 if we need– should tighten up those ranges so they’re not
2:28:27 overlapping as much and they are in a little more– can provide
2:28:31 a little more consistency.
2:28:32 John, I support your move on that just for the record.
2:28:35 I really think we do need a lot of work on this because I think
2:28:38 the menu option does create discrepancies and disparities in how
2:28:41 we’re disciplining.
2:28:42 So I– but I also recognize that this is a huge undertaking.
2:28:45 Yeah.
2:28:46 So this will be something we’ll have to work on.
2:28:48 In the future.
2:28:49 Sorry, Dr. Rendell.
2:28:50 Well, no, just to make sure the board’s aware, we’re going to
2:28:52 track the data a little differently this year as well to try to
2:28:54 make sure we can track if this offense was committed, what is
2:28:59 the consequence?
2:29:00 Like, clean.
2:29:02 So we can make sure that we can then say, did everybody who
2:29:05 committed bullying get the same thing?
2:29:07 Did everybody who committed leaving school campus without
2:29:09 permission get the same thing?
2:29:11 So right now we actually didn’t have a way to track that cleanly.
2:29:14 Okay.
2:29:15 At the very least it might give us a closer range of–
2:29:17 Correct.
2:29:18 And then we might say, yeah, we really need to fix this because
2:29:20 we’re all over the place.
2:29:21 Right.
2:29:22 Yeah.
2:29:23 Good.
2:29:24 I think your microphone turned off.
2:29:25 Okay.
2:29:27 So we were just looking at keeping it right now saying we’re
2:29:28 doing research.
2:29:28 Correct.
2:29:30 To make sure that next year may be some potential tightening up
2:29:43 of it.
2:29:45 Yes.
2:29:46 And some options.
2:29:47 Okay.
2:29:48 I’m pretty sure that’s what I said.
2:29:49 Yeah.
2:29:50 All right.
2:29:51 Moving on.
2:29:52 And I’ll go through some more of these two.
2:29:57 on the level four to level five changes in the code of conduct.
2:30:02 I know we had feedback on the, I think it was the false accusation
2:30:08 one.
2:30:09 Do we have any stance on the sexual harassment maintaining at a
2:30:14 level four or moving it to a level five?
2:30:17 I support five.
2:30:19 Leave it, putting it back at a four.
2:30:23 I actually thought when we discussed that, we ended up with
2:30:26 leaving it at a four.
2:30:28 I thought there was.
2:30:29 I thought so.
2:30:30 Mr. Thomas, what was your call?
2:30:31 Yeah.
2:30:33 I was leaving it at four.
2:30:34 Yeah, same.
2:30:35 All right.
2:30:38 That stays at a four.
2:30:39 Okay.
2:30:40 The rest of these are going to be based on the notes that I’ve
2:30:43 taken from conversation.
2:30:45 So Mr. Susan, you added that on page six, you would like there
2:30:49 to be language that under parent responsibilities,
2:30:52 that they review the code of student conduct with their child?
2:30:56 Something.
2:30:57 Something in that.
2:30:58 To give us the teeth that, hey, we put it in there for you to do.
2:31:00 You know what I mean?
2:31:01 However you want to word that.
2:31:02 But yes, that sounds good.
2:31:03 Yeah.
2:31:04 We got it.
2:31:05 Okay.
2:31:06 Yeah.
2:31:08 You got that.
2:31:09 The level two ones, Mr. Thomas, you had mentioned about the
2:31:12 ammunition’s possession,
2:31:13 the forgery and the possession of stolen property, particularly
2:31:17 maybe making a set dollar amount
2:31:19 to that, maybe moving them all to level three.
2:31:22 Was that something we wanted to move forward with?
2:31:25 And I would, I agree with Mr. Trent about the forgery.
2:31:29 So I would remove that one, but I would stick with if the board
2:31:32 were so inclined, especially
2:31:34 the possession of stolen property, give it a value and maybe
2:31:38 raise the level up if it’s
2:31:40 over a hundred dollars.
2:31:42 Yeah.
2:31:43 I’m not opposed to that.
2:31:44 I’ll support that.
2:31:45 Paul, is there anything that we agree?
2:31:48 The ammunition’s possession, just what are we talking about,
2:31:52 level two?
2:31:53 Yeah.
2:31:54 Because we’re talking about, you know, a kid who found, I’m not
2:31:57 just situations that happen.
2:31:59 A kid finds a bullet on the side of the road, you know, carries
2:32:03 it in their pocket, that
2:32:06 kind of thing, I, position of a fixed metallic or non-metallic
2:32:13 hole or casing containing a
2:32:14 primer, one or more projectiles, one or more bullets are shot
2:32:18 and/or gunpowder.
2:32:19 I think if it’s, if it’s, if there’s suspicion that there’s
2:32:22 something else going on, like
2:32:24 you talked about, if somebody has ammunition, somebody has a gun,
2:32:26 then I think that’s a
2:32:27 further investigation that those administrators do.
2:32:30 They don’t just leave it at, oh, somebody found bullets.
2:32:32 So, I mean, a lot of times we’ve had schools shut down because
2:32:36 they found a bullet in a
2:32:37 hallway.
2:32:38 Am I correct, Mr. Wilson?
2:32:39 Yes.
2:32:41 Because I’ve gotten the rave app notifications.
2:32:42 Like they, they call the shelter in place until they can figure
2:32:45 out what else may be going
2:32:47 on because someone found a bullet.
2:32:48 So I don’t think that they take it lightly.
2:32:50 But in this case, this would be, you know, I think the level two
2:32:54 instance is the situation
2:32:56 where, like I said, kid picks, you know, has it in their pocket.
2:33:01 It’s still discipline needs to be dealt with, but.
2:33:03 I mean, that’s one incident.
2:33:05 That’s, there’s also more of a chance that they, they have an
2:33:08 intention why they brought
2:33:09 it to, brought it to school.
2:33:10 Right.
2:33:11 And that’s part of the investigation.
2:33:12 I believe when Mr. Thomas brought this up earlier, we, he was
2:33:14 talking about leaving it
2:33:15 at a level two for elementary and making it a level three for
2:33:18 secondary.
2:33:19 Correct.
2:33:20 Okay.
2:33:21 I can, I can stay with that.
2:33:22 Thank you.
2:33:23 Okay.
2:33:24 So moving potentially, uh, ammunition, ammunition possession
2:33:28 from a level two to a level three
2:33:30 just for secondary, but keeping it as a level two for elementary.
2:33:34 Correct.
2:33:35 And then developing language, uh, for a set dollar amount for
2:33:39 possession of a stolen property.
2:33:41 And I would clarify that for secondary as well.
2:33:44 I think that.
2:33:45 Okay.
2:33:46 Mr. Susan, you had asked for the cell phone policy offenses
2:33:55 based on artifact one to collapse
2:33:59 the third offense to then become the level two offense, um, and
2:34:03 then replace the level,
2:34:05 the third offense with, uh, three days of OSS, I believe was the
2:34:09 consensus.
2:34:10 I’m opposed to that.
2:34:13 Um, okay, let’s go to.
2:34:18 Sounds like we’ve already, sounds like you already got the
2:34:20 consensus.
2:34:21 You said we, I think we collapsed three to two, two to one.
2:34:24 Yes.
2:34:25 And then adding out of school three.
2:34:26 Yeah.
2:34:27 Yep.
2:34:28 You got it.
2:34:29 That’s it.
2:34:31 You got it.
2:34:32 Yes, sir.
2:34:33 Um, for the tobacco, we were looking to change those, that range
2:34:37 as well.
2:34:38 Um, so for the first offense being a one to three day OSS,
2:34:43 second offense being a four
2:34:45 to five and the third day being the 10 day OSS and moving
2:34:49 tobacco in itself from a level
2:34:51 two to a level three offense.
2:34:53 Yep.
2:34:54 That’s right.
2:34:55 Regarding the flipper device, uh, the conversation and consensus
2:34:59 I believe was the request of a
2:35:01 new level four, uh, sorry, a new code being requested, um, and
2:35:06 adding to artists fact number three,
2:35:08 which outlines the wireless communication devices for secondary,
2:35:14 uh, I believe the consensus was
2:35:15 to add that as a level five offense and for elementary to add
2:35:18 that as a level four offense.
2:35:20 And then on the tail end to be able to confiscate and search it,
2:35:25 check with Paul Gibbs to make sure that we can do that.
2:35:36 By the way, you did an excellent job keeping up with all this.
2:35:38 Yeah.
2:35:39 I think there, I think there’s four or five of us writing notes.
2:35:42 So we’re going to all going to, yeah, we have people in the back
2:35:46 too as well.
2:35:46 There’s a whole committee on watching on TV that are cussing at
2:35:48 us right now.
2:35:49 Yeah.
2:35:50 And I believe there was, um, request as well to find the number
2:35:54 of times we used, uh,
2:35:56 failure to report criminal offenses this school year.
2:35:59 Um, I had someone do some research, uh, thankfully for that.
2:36:03 And we’ve had two this year so far.
2:36:05 Uh, the number of tobacco offenses this school year, I do not
2:36:09 have a number four,
2:36:10 but I can come back with a number of tobacco.
2:36:12 No rush.
2:36:14 Just something to look at.
2:36:15 That’s all.
2:36:16 Um, was there anything that we missed that I might not have
2:36:19 captured?
2:36:19 Um, we’ll need to talk about the tenancy policy with what Mr.
2:36:25 Gibbs.
2:36:25 Yes.
2:36:27 Mention.
2:36:28 If I need to, I can come to you with all the rest of the stuff
2:36:29 that we went through.
2:36:29 Okay.
2:36:30 I don’t want to go through that right now because Gene will
2:36:32 probably try to punch me.
2:36:33 Oh, and Ms. Wright, you had a thing about the stay away contract.
2:36:35 Correct.
2:36:36 I have that in my notes.
2:36:37 Hair and guardian contact must be made phone call, uh, instead
2:36:41 of just an email.
2:36:42 You want, you want that to be an actual conversation.
2:36:44 Yes.
2:36:45 And we will add that to the code of conduct list as well.
2:36:48 Okay.
2:36:49 The only other one I have is new code for failure to report
2:36:53 serious offense, right?
2:36:55 We were going to leave the criminal one the way it is.
2:36:57 Yeah.
2:36:58 And then I can go through them all if you guys want or I can
2:37:08 come over there and show
2:37:11 you guys.
2:37:12 There’s a couple more little things, but I don’t want to go
2:37:13 through it because I’m going
2:37:14 to get punched.
2:37:15 Well, I mean we’re, this is their chance to get consensus from
2:37:17 the board.
2:37:18 You can’t go around and have your side conversation with her.
2:37:20 We had consensus from the board.
2:37:22 We went through it.
2:37:23 I can go through it all again.
2:37:24 Is there anything we missed?
2:37:25 Is there anything else because what the next step would be?
2:37:29 So we did the tobacco, right?
2:37:31 Mm-hmm.
2:37:32 I’ll go back there.
2:37:40 I mean there’s a video on it.
2:37:41 It’s not a video.
2:37:42 So what we’ll do next is we’ll list, we’ll send this back out to
2:37:46 the board members and
2:37:47 we’ll list all the proposed changes and the artifacts.
2:37:50 If it’s on an artifact, if it’s on a page number, we’ll send
2:37:53 that to you.
2:37:54 And if there are any discrepancies we’d like, you can just email
2:37:59 me back and then we’ll
2:38:00 correct that because we wanted to have this on the April 8th
2:38:05 board agenda.
2:38:07 So I can have it before school.
2:38:09 The notification of the absences, but Paul Gibbs is going to
2:38:13 pull that as part of his recommendation.
2:38:13 Yes, we’re going to look at that auction.
2:38:14 We’re going to bring that back in April 8th.
2:38:17 We can pull the video, but I’ll go through this so we can get
2:38:19 moving because we’ll be here
2:38:21 all day if you let me go back into my notes.
2:38:22 What Mrs. Campbell is saying is as long as there’s nothing –
2:38:25 New.
2:38:26 It’s not anything new.
2:38:27 If it’s stuff we’ve already covered, yeah, it’s all good.
2:38:28 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
2:38:29 That’s it.
2:38:30 Yep.
2:38:31 That’s it.
2:38:32 I know it’s early late, but we’ve got to have to take a five-minute.
2:38:34 Yes.
2:38:35 Yeah.
2:38:36 If you don’t mind, we’re done, right?
2:38:37 Yes.
2:38:38 We’re all good.
2:38:39 And if we could, we could take a five-minute recess before we
2:38:40 continue.
2:38:41 Thank you guys for everything.
2:38:42 Thank you.
2:38:44 Let’s do it.
2:38:45 Thank you.
2:38:46 Let’s be pretty quick.
2:38:47 Daniel, are we still on your Christmas list?
2:38:48 Oh, my goodness.
2:38:49 All right.
2:38:49 I have a question.
2:38:50 All right.
2:38:51 Get out of the weeds of that.
2:38:52 Oh my goodness, all right. I have a question. All right. Get out
2:39:02 of the weeds of that.
2:39:22 Yeah.
2:39:52 All right.