Note: These minutes should be considered preliminary until they are approved at the next Policy and Amendment Committee meeting.
———————————————————————————————————————
Windham Southeast School District (WSESD) Policy and Amendment Committee
Tuesday, December 19, 2023
Regular meeting 2:30 pm
Hybrid meeting: WSESU Central Office, 53 Green St., Brattleboro, VT and
Remotely via Zoom
DRAFT MINUTES
Policy and Amendment Committee members present: Deborah Stanford (DS, Chair), Tim Maciel (TM), Anne Beekman (AB)
WSESD/U Staff and Administrators present: Mo Hart (MH), Paul Smith (PS), Kerry Amidon (KA)
Guests attending: Liz Adams (via Zoom), Eva Nolan (via Zoom)
Call to Order
Chair DS convened the meeting at 2:30 pm and read the hybrid statement.
Agenda amended:
● F1 is on hold until January 3.
● The sustainability coordinator was unable to attend today, so E14 will remain on hold pending his availability.
I. Approval of Minutes and confirmation of next meeting date
The minutes of the 12/5/23 meeting approved by assent.
The next Policy and Amendment Committee meeting is scheduled for:
Wednesday, January 3, 2024
The day/time/location of the Policy and Amendment Committee meetings in 2024 are still under discussion. There are conflicts with proposed regular meeting times.
II. Announcements and Updates from 12/12/23 Board Meeting
● Eva Nolan has officially withdrawn as a voting board member of the Policy and Amendment Committee.
● The following policies were presented for a first reading on 12/12/23 and will go for a second reading on 1/9/24:
o D7 Volunteers and Work Study Students
o F36 Student Freedom of Expression in School Sponsored Media
● The following policy went for a second reading on 12/12/23 and will be presented for re-adoption on 1/9/24:
o F32 Student Distribution of Literature
● The following policy was re-adopted by the Board on 12/12/23:
o D1 (Personnel Recruitment, Selection, Appointment and Background Checks)
III. Policies
G8 – Continuous Improvement Plan
● TM requested consistency in capitalization and punctuation in policies, e.g. Board or board.
● In the first paragraph under implementation: “The CIP will then be presented for a review, discussion and approval by vote at regular board meetings.”
o TM suggested adding a timeframe to this sentence – before the beginning of the academic year – and a short discussion followed, about whether that is feasible. Is the CIP ready to present before the school year begins?
o PS: The goals are pretty much in place at the year-end retreat. There may be additional discussion when principals get together at the beginning of the year. Formal adoption generally takes place at the beginning of the school year.
o The Board usually has a second August meeting, but not always. The CIP approval would push the Board toward holding that late August meeting.
o Revised policy sentence will include the timeframe: “The CIP will then be presented for a review, discussion and approval by vote at a regular Board meeting before the start of the academic year.”
● In the first bullet of #2, under Implementation: “specific goals and objectives for improved student learning…” add “measurable” so it reads: “specific goals and
measurable objectives for improved student learning…”
● In the second bullet of #2, under Implementation, add “and discrimination of any kind,” so it reads: “assessments of and efforts to maintain a safe, orderly, civil and positive learning environment free from harassment, hazing, bullying, and discrimination of any kind.”
● A discussion about #2, under Implementation, took place regarding the use of “will” in the beginning phrase, “The CIP will contain:”
o PS: The CIP is about taking action on what is critically important at the time. Are we obliged through the policy to put all those things in the CIP every year? Just because they’re not all in there, doesn’t mean we’re not addressing them. If something is in the plan, regardless of the goal, we’re obliged to take action on it, and the plan becomes everything to everyone.
o TM: We need the distinction between the policy and the plan.
o KA: We cover hazing, harassment, and bullying (HHB) in another policy.
o TM: If the “will” remains, then the CIP would have to contain statements on HHB that we may not want to address that year.
o DS: Because there are other policies to deal with hazing, it doesn’t go in the CIP?
o PS: It has to do with top priorities. The problem may go up on the priority list, and end up in the CIP. HHB is not biggest problem to address this year.
o Revised sentence for #2 will change “will” to “may”: “The CIP may contain:”
● Sparked by a discussion at a VSBA conference, EN asked if there are any internal policies that the superintendent and administration do not share with the Board. Delicate issues such as policies dealing with school safety.
o PS: There are crisis response plans. We don’t necessarily publish what our response to an intruder would be, for security reasons. But there is nothing in the CIP that wouldn’t be shared with the Board at the retreat, other than private student data.
● In the last bullet of #2: “links to the multi-year goals and objectives of the school’s strategic plan.”
o PS: This assumes all schools have a strategic plan. Change to “school-based continuous improvement plans”?
o “…goals and objectives of the school’s strategic plan” —> “of each school’s continuous improvement plan.”
● In #3 add “school-based” so it reads: “The Principal is responsible for implementing the school-based continuous improvement plan…”
● In #4 add “in collaboration with administrators” so it reads: At least twice annually, the School Board will review in collaboration with administrators…”
● A short discussion took place regarding #5 under Implementation: “Each fall, the Principal will engage the school’s Leadership Council in the CIP development.”
o TM: It would make more sense if the Principal engages the LC in the spring to discuss possible goals for the following school year. LCs don’t meet in summer, and they are newly formed in fall.
o Change wording to: “The Principal will engage the school’s Leadership Council in the continuous improvement process, including development of the new CIP for the following academic year.”
● DS: G1 (Curriculum Development and Coordination), F22 (Student Assessment), and H2 (Parental Involvement Policy) are all relevant to G8, so we should take a look at them as we continue our discussion of G8. F22 was readopted in August 2022, but G1 has not been reviewed since 2019.
● A discussion took place regarding the inclusion of legal references at the end of the policy.
o TM: According to the Secretary of Education, policies should not reference state laws because state laws change frequently and policies can’t keep up with them.
o Do we want to keep doing the legal references that may or may not change?
o PS: It can be helpful to have the legal reference, and it’s informative when laws do change.
o Moving forward, it will be worded as: “Legal references as of date of adoption.”
o MH – Will we verify before adopting the policy that the legal references are still valid?
o TM will check the applicability of the legal references for G8.
● G8 is on hold until next meeting, to be reviewed with today’s edits. G13 Acceptable Use of Electronic Resources & the Internet (renamed: Responsible
Computer, Network & Internet Use)
● Consistency in capitalization (e.g. District/district) should be looked at, but it will be left alone for now.
● Comma improvement on page 5: “The Superintendent, or their designee, shall conduct an annual analysis of the implementation of this policy and shall make recommendations to the Board as needed to ensure that the District’s approach to Internet safety is effective.”
● TM: Should the use of AI be included in this policy? Some schools are using AI to students’ benefit. Some students are using it to cheat. Some teachers are using it to generate questions that are better than their own.
o The question of whether the committee is ready to add AI to this discussion was left to consider at a later time.
● Page 6: parental notification caregiver notification. Also add caregiver to instances of parent/guardian parent/guardian/caregiver
● DS reminded voting members of the committee that they need to read the policies on the agenda before the meeting.
● G13 on hold until 1/3/24. G16 Class Size Policy
● Last page of G16, under “Existing State Board Rules Regarding Maximum Class Sizes,” the three paragraphs are labeled b), c), and e) – it appears a) and d) are
missing.
o The introductory statement indicates: “Portions of SBE Rule 2120.8.2 are as follows,” which is why a) and d) are not included.
o Is there a better way to make it clear that we’re not missing a) and d)?
o A look at the State Board of Education (SBE) website shows that 2120.8.2 is no longer included in the rules. The new version only goes up to 2120.8, but 2121.2 (Staff) contains references to class size:
▪ “Classes in grades K-3, when taken together, shall average fewer than 20 students per teacher.”
▪ There is an “out” clause in 2127: “Upon request of a school board, the Secretary may waive class and caseload size requirements where: a) necessary to carry out locally-established objectives; b) student learning will not be adversely affected; c) classroom control will not be compromised; and d) it is otherwise in the best interests of student learning.”
o DS: Does this mean we need to reconstruct the guidelines at the end of the policy?
● DS: The policy has come up for review after an email in September asked if it would be possible to codify or strengthen the policy with regards to keeping class size small, especially for kindergarten.
o TM: our district does not have problem meeting class size guidelines.
o LA: Many of our classes are 20 kids. This year Putney Central School has 21 kids for kindergarten, and the group has been split into two classes. The teachers are just ecstatic about working with a smaller group, and if a kindergarten teacher can straighten out what is wrong before 1st grade, that will impact what happens in later grades. The district might want to keep an eye on what happens at PCS with this class.
o PS: There is one class of 21 in K, in Dummerston. All others in the district have fewer than 20.
● Other considerations raised:
o KA: If we set limits, isn’t the policy going to have to change with each budget year?
o PS: If there are SBE rules, we can’t go against them.
o TM: We’d do the district a service to set a maximum class size, at least for K-3.
o TM: MS can discuss with the principals and decide what K-3 class size should be, within the SBE rules.
o DS: Do we want our guidelines to include SBE averages, and then a note about our expectations of what the class sizes inside the district should be?
o AB: We can’t hire a new teacher every time there is one more student, for budget reasons.
o DS: We need to take a look at the model policy in our group.
o PS – interesting wrench: SBE has minimum class size guidelines.
o TM: With universal pre-K, what should be the guideline for pre-K?
▪ LA: Class size for pre-K is not dictated by AOE but by the Dept of Children and Families.
o TM: We need to hear from administration and from teachers who are teaching these classes.
● DS: What is the goal of the policy?
o PS: The policy is actually saying that the law says we have to tell principals and the superintendent that we have to come up with guidelines for class size. Our policy could be a directive to principals and superintendent that they come up with class size guidelines: Make sure
these guidelines are where they’re supposed to be.
● DS: Regarding G16, do we put it on hold and have a discussion with MS to see how he wants to handle this with his admin team?
● PS will create a package about class size guidelines off all these various sites to give to MS.
● DS: At the next meeting, we will talk with MS about this discussion and PS will have a package for him.
● G16 hold until MS can be part of the discussion.
F4 – Searches, Seizures, and Interrogation of Students by School Personnel
● F4 was on hold so that MK could check in with Pietro Lynne on specific language. PL confirmed that the language in the policy is correct as written. Policies as written were a reflection of the law. We are not able to conduct searches where there is reasonable expectation of privacy without reasonable suspicion.
o F4 includes “reasonable suspicion” in its language (page 1):
▪ “Searches of students’ persons, personal effects, and vehicles may be conducted where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting at the time of initiating the search that the search will reveal evidence of a violation of law or of school rules.”
▪ “The superintendent or designee shall ensure that all searches of students and all searches and seizures of student property are conducted in a manner that complies with state and federal protections against unreasonable searches and seizures of students and student property in schools.”
● A discussion ensued surrounded the note at the bottom of page 1: “Note: Schools may obtain blanket permission to search vehicles that students drive to school and park in the school parking lot by requiring parents, caregivers, and students to consent to such inspections as a condition of obtaining a permit for parking on school grounds. Without consent of this sort, school officials who wish to search student vehicles need reasonable suspicion that the search will provide evidence of a violation of law or school rules.”
o This note would allow schools to obtain blanket permission to search student vehicles as a condition for getting a parking permit.
o Question 1: Is this being done at the high school currently? A question for Hannah.
o Question 2: Do we want this blanket permission to be possible?
▪ Yes? Because of incidents at school, such as possession of firearms.
▪ Such cases could fall under reasonable suspicion.
▪ No? Because of concern of it being used against marginalized people.
▪ Concern that reasonable suspicion could be used against marginalized people as well – for example, with scents, students that wear patchouli.
● Need for further guidance expressed. Police Chief Norma Hardy will be contacted.
● F4 is on hold so MS can be part of the discussion and to allow time to get input from Norma Hardy and Hannah.
Agenda for 1/3/24 to include:
G8
F1
E14?
Proposed Gender Freedom in Schools
G13
G16
F4, F5
Policies linked to G8: H2, G1, F22
Meeting adjourned at 4:32 pm
Notes taken by Anna Monders (recorder)
Submitted by Tim Maciel (vice chair)
