Thank you. All right, good point. And we do need to make sure we're using the microphone, make sure it's on and using it. I just started talking, but I guess the recording last month was not super when people were trying to listen to it from the public. So really, and I know we had some technology problems, so it was kind of a multifaceted thing. But when you come up, let's make sure we get the microphones on and people can hear what's going on. So welcome to May's Standard and Assessment Committee meeting. And we are going to go ahead and have board members introduce themselves. My name is Jenny Earle, and I represent northern Utah, which is in District 1, and that's the whole top of the state. Box Elder, Morgan Cash, Rich, some of Summit County. And so we'll go ahead and let board member Green, as she's here, and then we'll see who else is with us. Yep, board member Green. I represent District 14. I'm at the midsection of Utah, from Iron County all the way up to, anyway, up to Springville area in Payson. Yeah, very good. Let's see. Board member Brenton, are you online? Yes, I'm online. I'm board member Brenton. I represent southern Utah, District 15, and happy to be working on our standards today. Thank you. And do we get board, did Vice Chair Wood? Okay, we have to, Vice Chair Wood has some family circumstances that she's working with today. So she'll be in and out trying to accommodate the best she can. So we're going to try to be sensitive to that. And when board member Real gets here, we'll let her introduce herself. We have one public comment this morning by Edson Barton, if he wants to come up. And we'll give you two minutes, roughly. Okay. Right here. Yes, right there. And then just press the light, and it's green. That means that it's on. Hello, thank you. My name is Edson Barton. I'm the CEO of U-Science, and I am a lifetime Utah resident, live in Lehigh currently, and our headquarters of our company are in American Fork. So we employ about 100 people, most of which live here in Utah as well. We have been working with the career and technical education groups in Utah for over 20 years now. And as part of that, we provide services with both helping students align properly to pathways that are best fit for them. And we do that through aptitudes guidance programs, which is completely unique in how we help students identify what they're naturally good at. We then support them in choosing correct career pathways, which lead to higher outcomes for students on many fronts. And we connect those pathways through certification programs that are developed here in Utah with Utah experts and subject matter experts throughout the state and through industry. We work with industry partners ranging from manufacturing association to the aerospace and defense association to the real estate association and just about everything in between. Those career certifications are really key for students we're really in Utah, I don't think we fully understand how great the programs are here in Utah. I have the unique capability and opportunity to see programs throughout the entire United States on how they impact students. And Utah is the only state in the nation that has a comprehensive guidance and career certification program that builds students from the ground up in a true stackable credential way. That's really unique. And it ties the communities together in ways that are truly powerful. As I meet with community partners, in particular with the industry who constantly has the problems of labor shortages and other needs, they are looking for solutions like Utah has created and their support behind the programs has been really instrumental over the years to create a more unified system throughout the entire state. I really credit a lot of that to the leadership here at the USBE under the career and technical education group, but also the counseling groups. Because the recognition is that as we do more and more career connected learning, student outcomes improve dramatically throughout their lives. One of the things I like to say is that career connected learning improves every aspect of a student's life. And that's barely an overstatement. So the research and the studies that have been done there are truly tremendous. I just would like to say that I'm here and I'll be here throughout the meeting and if you have questions throughout the period of time, I'd be happy to answer any that come up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for the public comment. And yeah, you're welcome to stay. You can hang out all day if you want. We've got lots of fun stuff on the agenda. Yes, you do. Besides the CTE. So, anyways, thank you. We appreciate your knowledge and thoughtfulness. Thank you. All right, we're going to go ahead and get started with our first agenda item. We are on 2.2. It's an action item. We ask that the standards review process be converted to an action item this month. And it still may take us more than a month to get this narrowed and scoped and everything. But I do think the discussion, I have a number of recommendations. I'm sure other board members have recommendations. And then we'll just kind of see where that lands today. I am going to set a little bit of expectation here. I'm going to kind of say we're not going to go over 30 minutes. But that's just a soft expectation with this body. If we go over 30 minutes, that's fine. But if we just set some expectation there, we may get through a few more than four or five items today. Okay. Do you want to do a little bit of introduction at all or not? I know we've already kind of introduced this. We've talked about it for several months and had a lot of items on there. Let me pull up my recommendations. And then let's go from maybe just I have some things that I would strongly recommend. And I'd love just some feedback from the committee itself. I'm just going to read off my three recommendations. One of those is that the writing committee applicants are invited to apply through a formal public request process. In other words, it's not -- we're not just going out and finding someone. We're actually asking people to apply and then to submit their qualifications as well as letting them know what the expectations are at the front. Right. Time expectations, kind of timeframe as well as whether or not, you know, the knowledge of them being on the committee would be public or not. That kind of a thing. So that upfront they're aware of what those parameters are when they apply. So that's one recommendation. That would be in step four. And then in step seven, and board members may meet -- oh, this is -- that board members may meet with stakeholders and community members while considering recommendations. Previously, we were able to look at the standard, the draft standards, but we were not able to talk with anybody in the public. And that made it really hard to gather thoughtful, reasonable feedback for board member input when you can't even engage with anybody but yourself. So looking at putting some parameters there or at least opening that up a little bit. And I don't know if that language is quite right, but at least allowing -- I mean, a board member wouldn't want to disclose a draft until it was publicly disclosed, but at least be able to engage with public entities. And then step nine, I would recommend 45 days for public feedback with a continuation of the three regional meetings as currently outlined in law. So kind of cutting that 90 day down because I feel like it doesn't matter whether it's 90 days, 220 days, or five days. Most people until it gets to the last couple of days, right? Not most people, but some people, I guess I'm speaking for myself, right? Say the deadline's here, so I need to make sure I meet the deadline. But, you know, that 45 days is probably adequate for most standards. And it would also speed up when we -- it would cut some time, a month and a half off of when the standards are released. So those are my three strong recommendations. I don't know if anybody has any feedback on those. Go ahead. And then we could kind of vote on putting those in if we wanted to do it that way. So -- I actually had some of the similar recommendations as well, specifically about the 45-day. I don't know if 30 days is enough, but I think 45 days definitely kind of builds in a buffer of not knowing and then being able to get on board and work towards that. So I do think that being involved in the selection of that is important. So I don't want that to completely go away of being aware of how we -- you know, who's doing what and where we're getting those people from. I think -- let's see -- on the considerations that was put together for us condensing those revision process considerations. Of all of them, I didn't like number one the most, the eight-week. Yeah. Let's do the three that I recommended. Only -- and then we can decide to move those -- you know what I mean? And then we can go into the other things where we're just discussion points. Does that make sense? Yeah, not a problem. Okay. Okay. Did you want to add to that? Okay. Yes. Hi. Megan Everett, Director of Teaching and Learning. On your recommendations, you have Step 4 for applicants who are invited to apply. I'm wondering if that goes in Step 6 where the writing committee is assembled or if you're wanting to move that to Step 4 to occur earlier. Let me look again. Sorry. I think Step 4 is about -- It's wherever we're putting the writing committee together. Okay. So if it isn't Step 6, is it Step 6 where the writing committee is put together? It is. Okay. So Step 4 is the review committee. That's that initial committee that's assembled with the house input. Okay. And it depends on -- I guess the Step 4 would apply depending on if we decided to make any modifications to the -- Right. Right. Yeah. So it would be Step 6 and Step 4 then? Currently, it's Step 6 is where the writing committee is assembled. Okay. Let's just -- we'll just move this to Step 6 then if we can make that change. So let me -- You want 4 to change to 6? Yes. Okay. Just if -- just the 4 to 6 there. And then we could have discussion on that other committee and just look at those considerations. Okay. Okay. Any other -- any other feedback on these three recommendations? Any online feedback? I don't know if -- I don't -- I see Joanne. I don't see Board Member would though. Because we don't want to miss stuff that's on the house. Thanks. Okay. I would -- I would propose these. I can read through them one more time. So on Step 6, the writing committee, applicants are invited to apply through a formal public request outlining qualifications and expectations. Step 7, board members may meet with stakeholders and community members while considering recommendations. Step 9, 45 days for public feedback with the continuation of three regional meetings as currently outlined in law. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Go ahead. Okay. On the Step 9, it originally -- I believe it says currently -- maybe that's just on the considerations, there is an online option as well. Yeah. Just however it's outlined in law, which would -- Okay. I didn't know we need to clarify that in this motion though. I -- Do you think we need to? I think in law it allows for the online. Is that what -- that's what you're saying, right? So -- Yes. We can -- So in Step 9, bullet 2 says staff plans and facilitates three public hearings in different regions of the state, including at least one virtually. Okay. Can we just include that? Yeah, yeah. I would be fine including that. Do you want to add that? Yeah, just making sure one of those is -- Including -- One of those accessible virtually or something like that. Virtual as currently outlined in law. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments to this? I don't see anybody. Board Member Brenton. Can I -- yeah. Can I just ask, has a board member ever sat in on the writing committee staff as they're going through the standards? Or is it just waiting for them to come back, Rob? I just wonder if a board member is ever chosen to be part of the process. As they go along. Not while we've been doing this. The answer is not while -- not in the latest years. Okay. If that makes sense. So -- and I think that is -- some of those considerations lower down, if that makes sense. But, yeah, we can look at that. So -- okay. All those in favor of these recommendations? Aye. Go ahead and vote aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That passed unanimously. And I think board member Vice Chair Wood is still not on yet. Okay. So that's four to four, and we're missing board member Wood. Okay. And then I have -- is there any other -- maybe I'll let any other items -- Yeah, I have -- Yeah, go ahead. I'm just wondering about the timeline. You know, we've looked at the amount of time that the standards come up. Where would be the proper place? I would like to move that we extend our revision process out to ten years instead of seven, or as needed. Where would that be good to look at? That's a good question. Is that -- is that -- I don't know if that -- that is part of the process, right? But it's not necessarily -- If I could just -- Yeah. Go ahead. -- speak to that. As I went through all the different states, you know, we have a report showing -- and states kind of were all over the place from four years to ten years. And just in getting feedback from stakeholders and superintendents, the feedback that I've gotten is they would like us not to change standards so often and to push that out longer or as needed by legislation. Because every time there's a big standards overhaul, they're forced to buy new curriculum. And so I want to make sure we're being fiduciary, you know, responsible with our funds and not forcing the districts to buy new curriculum when it's not really necessary. Good question. I agree. So that is currently not in the process document, but it is in the policy 3002. It doesn't specifically say the timeline. It just says if the core standards revision is warranted, either by board-established timeline or the revision rubric. And what we've been doing since this most recent process is doing a queuing rubric to see what standards might be ready to be revised based on input from the field, change in legislation, the length of time from when they were previously revised. If the board would like, what we could do is go back and say where we've been with all the standards and create, this is when we expect each of these to come up again on a 10-year basis. So Board Member Bollinger reached out to me on this very item. This was one of her big concerns. And she had a suggestion. I don't know if it will -- maybe it will coincide kind of with what you're thinking, Board Member Brinton. But she suggested on the queuing rubric that we don't even ask for feedback until at least five years after we've begun implementation, which would be seven years after we've started rewriting some. So even -- it would be a five years out of the implementation before it would even be put on a queuing rubric. So that would almost be seven years from the start of a rewrite before we're even considering is there anything here that needs to be -- do you know what I mean? But it could be longer. It could be eight. It could be nine. It could be 10 years, right? And she had recommended maybe that the queuing rubric itself -- because we send everything out every year, right? And the question is, is that necessary? It's suggesting that any of those could be brought up when the reality is as many of those are either being revised or have been revised. So I don't know. I think whatever we could do to lessen the load and not have to review over and over for our districts, every year seems overkill. Does that feel -- I guess we could make a motion along that lines then that the -- I guess the queuing rubric is not before us, so to speak. Is that just an internal document? We could make that recommendation then. Okay. So, Board Member Brinton, do you want to do that or do you want me to frame up the question? Maybe if we could get some language. I'm sorry. I didn't prepare the language. Yeah, yeah. You're okay. Well, let's just work together here. Let me see if I can frame something up and then you guys can alter it as, you know, board members see. I would recommend that the queuing rubric not -- well, not frame it in a negative, right? Include core revision standards only after, what, five years from implementation or six years from implementation? What do you want to -- which it would be seven from the time we started, right? Seven or eight, depending on what we put there. What would be the good timeline if we're going to move to more of a 10-year standards -- sorry, I've got some voices in the background. I guess a question while we're working through that. Do you think that that should be core only? No, I think that should be all -- It could be any standard. Standards. Yeah. Good question. I mean, it's hard because I know with the CTE standards, all like 9,000 of them -- I mean, the technology changes so rapidly that we end up -- It's 9,001. It is 9,001. My bad. That we have to end up reviewing those so frequently because technology is changing. And so -- And those are on a three-year basis usually. Yeah. Three to four. But that's a little different. I think that's a little bit -- we have a different process for those. Right. So -- But I don't know -- CTE is just the one that comes to mind because we have so many. Yeah. But I'm wondering if there's other ones. But -- because -- I agree with board member Brenton. I think that -- well, I often say that if I would have been -- I could have gotten rich by going into a curriculum -- building a curriculum company or a tech company. Because they -- it's a demand. It requires our LEAs to purchase new curriculum so frequently. And I hear from educators all the time that, you know, this is working really well, right? Why are we adjusting little, small changes to the standards that require a brand-new curriculum? So I think something in there. But I -- if we're focused fully on core in this process, then that's fine. But if we're talking about the process altogether, then I think that's something to consider, I guess. We have two different -- two different -- three different -- or four different processes, right? Yes. And I think you and I have gone through a few of them. But I think for this request, it might be good to just know if there's any other that could have an extended timeline as well, at least in the request. Okay. I'm requesting for all of our standards to be pushed off to a longer time period or as needed. So I think it's going to be a longer process. It's more beneficial to our superintendents and our districts, not to curriculum vendors. So do you want them unless there is a specific need? What do you want to put there? Well, we already allow for that specific need through other -- through the -- Truncated process. Yeah, truncated process. So this would be -- this would be those large rewrite standards. Do we need just standards then? Or is there another title that that needs to have there? Does that make sense? Core standards may not incorporate everything, but it -- So this process is specific to the eight standards areas that we review that are called out in R277700. Okay. So should that say core standards here? Yes. This is the process for the core standards. Yeah, that's why I'm like, maybe this doesn't. If we want to modify anything else, we would need to bring that model forward instead of -- Because we are focusing on the core standards here, right? Correct. Is there anything that doesn't fit into that? No, because our -- the supplemental have a truncated process or a simplified process. Okay, is five years too long, too little? Can we put seven? Is that too long? I think if your goal is to have new -- it depends on what you mean by a 10-year review. So if your goal is to have standards that are finished at 10 years, so ready to go. Somewhere between five and seven years for this, two to three years for revision, puts you at a 10-year adoption. If you did not bring them forward until 10 years, then it would be more like 12 years. And this would be just queuing them for the rubric. This isn't really -- this is just saying they won't even go on for consideration until they reach this point. That doesn't mean they're going to be queued at that point. Right. So, Board Member Brenton, did you have a comment? Well, yeah, I just -- I mean, for me, I think it's -- where is it needed? You know, I don't think they should be redone if there's no need for a change. So, I think that should be something in the consideration as well. It is already built into the process. Thank you. And even when it comes -- if it comes to the Board, we've had this happen. We've had standards that have been queued for change. They've come to the Board for our consent on our consent calendar. And we've pulled it off and said there isn't significant need on this, so we're not moving this forward. So, it does allow for that if they're queued up for revision. Okay. Is that an accurate statement? Okay. All right. Thank you. I feel like this gets us pretty close or closer. You can -- I mean, if you feel like this needs to be modified in any way, then we do have when it comes to the full board. But I think that's going to get us further out. So, we're -- yes. I know we've already voted on this part. The 90-day public comment is in code. It's in legislation. Okay. So, we're going to need to -- there's a couple of pieces that we might have to ask our -- policy requirements. Yeah. It would have to be next year. So, yeah. Okay. All right. Let's go ahead and take action on this. So, the committee -- let's see. Committee action is Board Member Brenton moved that the core standards queuing rubric only be brought forward for revision consideration after five years of implementation. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. That unanimously passes. And -- all right. Other items that people have. I can bring some up, but I'll leave it open for other comments for a minute. Okay. Let me -- I'm just throwing some other ideas out there. And this is because I've read through other states. One consideration. These are -- these just need further discussion. And maybe it's a thumbs down. I'm good with that, too. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. I'll leave it open for you. You'd put the subcommittee together relevant to whatever standards are being written. Okay. So there'd be a subcommittee for math, for ELA, for SEED, or whatever. Yeah. I don't know. Maybe, like I said, this is just an idea. No, I don't hate the idea. I'm fully open to reconsidering how we do this process. But I'm just wondering how much work that would be and if we're going to be able to find folks to sit on that for an application. Once again, it would have to pick out key times when they would be engaged or involved. Right now, what happens is that parent review committee, which consists of parents, but it also consists of the board puts together some other recommended people. They meet several times over the course of several months. They bring us recommendations and then they disappear. Yeah. Right? So the idea is that they would engage at the beginning and make a recommendation to the board and then at other times. And I don't know. I just, as I read through the other states, a lot of them have two groups that are kind of doing a double vetting, so to speak, or working with each other. Yeah, I remember seeing that too. Megan, what do you think an application, like practically implementing that? So you're right. It is common across many other states, instead of taking the time at the, not taking the time, but instead of having this separate set aside group at the beginning that is disconnected throughout the process, a lot of them do have that subcommittee or a second group that's kind of working in tandem and the rules of each are kind of laid out. Like the writers are in charge of the writing, this group's in charge of the writing, or this group's in charge of speaking to the board, whatever duties you would assign to each of them. I think parents, higher education, educators are, if you get them through an application process or a designation process, easy to keep involved. So legislators and board members historically have busier lives and are harder to keep involved throughout things just because of their schedules. Makes sense. Yeah. Especially if it flows over session or anything like that. Okay. Chair Earle. Yes. Can I ask a clarifying question? Yes. Are you looking at changing the standard review committee, the review -- The initial -- The initial -- Starting in number three, in step three, to be a committee with this organization that then works throughout? Yeah. Okay. That's my -- I just want to make sure I understood. That's my discussion point. I don't know that -- like I said, I don't -- I'm not wed to it, but I just feel like, you know, I'm trying to just look at that first committee being more effective and maybe broader in how it's -- the people in it. So -- Chair Earle. Yes. Leanne is online. Oh, yes. Go ahead. Board Vice Chair Wood. Do you want to -- Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to offer my comments on this. Having served on the initial seed committee for the science standards as a parent, I love this idea of making it more cohesive. We kind of came in, we offered our feedback, and then we were then done with the process. And I love that there would be some more cohesive work along as we go along. I think it would make the work more just transparent and involve parents. Also, I don't know where you're on. I'm sorry. I just barely got on the opportunity to have parents apply rather than be appointed if we could do some changes to code so that we get parents from across the state. It's not just who you know or what your network is. It could be more inclusive of across-the-state parents. Okay. And I think that's why I had that on number four up above. We did approve those other recommendations that I had recommended earlier. Leanne, so you can maybe catch up on that later. Or if we need to give you, I'm happy to send you those. So yeah, which would mean that this kind of the similar process where there's an application process. You have an interest and you would apply and then we would, you know, whatever the criteria was, we would pick that. It could be similar to how we currently put together, you know, for, we have names that are submitted to us and in our, the board puts that committee together. That's one way of doing it or we can figure out how that's done. So I don't know. Any other thoughts on this? This probably needs to be vetted out just a little bit more before it's, I'm kind of feeling. Just more the logistical piece of like what it actually entails. And at what point. The idea is there, I think for sure. Okay. So probably what I'm going to do is continue to work on this with anybody that wants to work with me to get this maybe hammered out a little bit more over the next month so that we have, you know, we're not sending something to the board that doesn't have, you know, the final recommendation piece. So I'll work, I'll work on that. Any other, any other items? I did have, I, the other item I have and this is, this is one piece that I feel like we sometimes are missing from our standards is the technical research review and the current research associated with whatever we're moving forward with the standards. I feel like there needs to be some component of that so people know why we're doing what we're doing within the standards, you know, in that particular subject area. So, I mean, I don't know what that would look like. I don't know if you have any feedback or if at some point there's a request that we make sure that there's a research review or a, you know, technical piece to, to that. I don't know. I don't know. Megan, do you have any thoughts? I'm kind of just throwing that out there for you. On the fly. Yeah. There were two similar things in other states. One is some of them initiated their review with outside research. Look, similar to how we're doing the independent review for mathematics currently. So they put theirs out at the start kind of as part of that queuing process and had people take a look and say what was going on there to inform the review getting started. That adds time and that adds cost. The other thing you could do is ask for whoever is involved in this, particularly if you were to change to that subcommittee where you have higher education or higher education folks have been a part of the writing committee as well typically. So, you know, we could ask them throughout the process to continue informing that by research. So, for example, right now when you get public comment or board comment and they're responding to each of those changes, you could ask them for any of the research considerations that are backing with. Maybe that could be a part of what that subcommittee does is bring in that technical research review. Yeah, I believe that those conversations are happening when they're talking about it. I think it's just probably not getting written down on paper for you to see. Yeah. And I think that's probably true. Right? So, yeah. I have a question about that. So in Arkansas, if you bring up the different... Lean into your microphone a little bit. Yeah, so it's the review of state standard adoption processes document. Oh, yeah. Okay. So Arkansas, their step one is external review by outside content experts. Is that the same thing as what you're saying with technical research review? Possibly. I just want to make sure that we're looking at what the current research is in that field and where we're seeing the successes. So we're not perpetuating maybe... I mean, like we saw in literacy, right? For decades, we're perpetuating something that's not really beneficial to students. So we're looking at what the current research is and trying to make sure that it's aligned with learning outcomes. And is this the same thing, so either the content expert, technical research review, and what we just did with the math standards? Is that on the same... I'm just trying to get my head in the right place. It could be both, right? I don't know that I've narrowed that down. I just feel like we don't always see the technical research associated with where the standards land. So that's... And that is... Well, I mean, through all the different people that we bring in and the committees that we form, we're hoping that we're kind of bringing in those experts at this point right now, correct? All right. So it could just be included as part of... We could just make sure it's, you know, a provision related to one of the groups or something. Okay. So, yeah, I'm just trying to place where that would be, like if it's lacking in our current step because it is maybe a more specific person that we're looking for, again, as maybe we're looking at with the math standards review, then where that might be missing in our current documents and where it could be going, like where it could go. So, anyway. Okay. Well, thank you. Okay. I think unless there's anybody else that has feedback, I might... We might just kind of put a pin in this and just ask that it come on our next agenda. We've already moved a few things that will, not this month, but I think next month, we'll move the whole thing forward. Does that make sense? So we'll ask for this again next month so we can kind of tidy up that subcommittee, or at least a recommendation for the subcommittee, if that's okay. And then in June, we'll... I think we can make some more formal recommendations there and really clean that up. And then we'll have something to... Because we will need to make changes to legislation. So this still has a little bit of time moving forward and let's get some feedback on that. Is that all right with the rest of this committee? I don't need to make a formal action to hold it. Does that need a formal action? Because if you're holding it in committee, even though you made the motions, or no? I don't think so. AAG, do you think that's... Do we have a problem with that? The question is whether... We've made some actions for the board, but we want to hold the whole thing for another month. So those actions will go to the board, but it will be probably in August instead of June. Is there a need to make a formal recommendation that those actions don't go to the board until the whole thing goes forward? No. No. We could just... We'll hold it until we're ready and then those actions are already... Would just be continued already. Yeah. Right? Because then you can always list it as continued. Yeah. So we... Yeah, listed as continued so that it does have that clarity on it. Okay. So when you address it, Chair, at board, it's just continued to August. Okay. Yeah, perfect. Okay. And we... If that's all right, we're going to go ahead and move to the next agenda item. And that is our CTE audit report discussion. And I asked specifically for Talia Longhurst to tell us what they have already been engaged in. So that as we're saying, this is what we want you to do, right? And we're making recommendations. We're like... We then don't get the feedback. We have done that already, or we have done this, or that's already been in place. And if there's some backup, but then if you have additional questions, we'll let... We'll turn the time over to Director Longhurst. Good morning. Talia Longhurst, Director of Career and Technical Education. You can see on the screen, and it's going to be easier for me to read from the screen than to hurry and pull it up on my own computer. So thanks, Andrea, for scrolling along with me. There are a number of issues that we're already in the process of addressing and working on. We will start this month meeting with a work group to start looking at funding formulas and allocations and what some potential changes might be. Working on new core code implementation for some non-CTE courses to lessen confusion. Board rule updates. So you'll see in Finance Committee today that we have some updates going forward for R277-911, which is our add-on formula, and all of the issues of the requirements and the funding that goes along with add-on. Those will go forward in response to some legislative changes that have recently been made. We'll have more. You'll see R277-911 coming back to you a couple of times in the next year to address different parts and pieces as we complete them. The CT graduation credit language was already approved in 700 back in February. Working with financial operations to improve LEA funding. Financial reporting expectations. Those are listed there for you. Working with IT and data and statistics to improve data reporting by LEAs and by USBE. And we have identified a need for more data training, more of our staff to understand data. So some of our staff have gone through some training and will continue to increase our abilities in that area. Andrea, is there more? Yep, there you go. There is some additional data that will be available to LEAs through the Data Gateway. A detailed review of courses and endorsements to look for opportunities to streamline. And then finally, there have been 68 courses aligned and approved for concurrent enrollment with the technical colleges. And that program, that concurrent enrollment with technical colleges, will start this coming school year, 26-27. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Committee members, do you have any questions on any of these items? And you've already begun the work group? I just wanted to-- We'll start later this month. Later this month. Yes. Okay. And then the feedback from that work group and the work from that will come to this committee? Correct. Or to finance one or the other. Finance. Okay. And we're expecting by fall so we can make recommendations if we have to. Correct. Legislatively. Okay. Any questions on this item? This is great. You know, in talking to our USHE partners, I think, and Superintendent Hart, I think there's a lot of good work being done in collaboration to better align and look for opportunities to remove duplications and be more thoughtful about the courses that we offer and then leading to technical pathways and careers. And so I think that's great. Okay. Any other recommendations that this body has? Let's bring those forward so we can send something to the board if we have an official recommendation. I know, like I said, we've got staff. I wanted to know where staff were already engaging in this process. But do we have any other official? Can someone remind me who's on the work group or what's included in the work group? So the work group will be LEAs, either business administrators, CT directors, whoever they'd like to get involved to really talk with us about what's working well and what's not and how we can do better. Okay. And then there is Interim Superintendent Voorhees. Is there a coordination with USHE and is there other working groups and folks that are working on the concurrent enrollment tech and such? Okay. Thank you very much. Chair, do you want to respond? Yes. Go ahead. Okay. Leah Voorhees, Deputy Superintendent. Yes. So we have actually been meeting, we being Superintendent Hart and I, and sometimes Deputy Jones and sometimes Assistant Superintendent Newey, have been meeting with Commissioner Landward and Deputy Superintendent Stallings, sometimes Deputy Commissioner, several of the Deputy Commissioners. Hawket and to coordinate several things. We had started actually before the CTE audit, but now we have incorporated many of those, many of the recommendations. If you remember from last month, I had taken apart the audit and I had 18 specific recommendations that we were looking at from the audit. And USHE administration and USBE administration have actually chosen four that we think collaboratively we can really work on to improve services and supports and consistency across USHE organizations, technical colleges and degree granting institutions, as well as high schools and public education. So we are continuing to work on those. In fact, we will be speaking to a couple of them at Ed Interim on May 20th for the first time. So, yeah, we have a list that we are coordinating at a very high level. What Director Longhurst is talking about is really important coordination between the LEAs and USBE and looking at funding. And we're doing very high level coordination related to policy recommendations, consistency between and across organizations, that kind of thing. And we will be organizing inside of the agency the work around that coordination. Great. And it's all, I mean, there's like the whole first credential thing going on at the same time. Yes. One piece that I have learned recently that has become of great importance for the governor and there was a big group that went over to Switzerland this month. Higher Ed legislators, the governor, and there's been this quick shift in apprenticeships. And so I'm not sure where, if there's anything that we can do in preparation for that. But I think that is going to become something that the governor and the legislature is going to look for more apprenticeship pathways. If anyone is geeky about it and wants to, they want, they're looking at, Indiana has a system set up with apprenticeships where it really is going from K through 12 into technical education and into these apprenticeships. So that is something that we've already talked about with education chairs. Great. Just like education chairs. And with the administration of USHI, that's definitely on the list. Great. Yeah, I sit in a weird spot where I like, I get it from both directions, because I'm getting it at Sully Community College and then I'm here and I'm like, what, we've got to make sure we're aligned. So, great. May I just add a note on that? So for a number of years, we've been working with Talent Ready Utah and USHI around apprenticeships. We have apprenticeships in secondary ed already, including following that Swiss model with Staudler Rail as one example. So those are already built out and scalable for industries when they're ready to accept our students. Yeah, I guess on your side, it'd be looking for opportunities to, you know, if you're saying, you know, here are the courses that we're offering, you know, where is this going? It's like looking at those courses, which one of them could be potential workforce partnerships and apprenticeships potential there, too. And identifying those, that'd be great. Correct. And we rework our courses based on the needs for apprenticeship if necessary. Awesome. Cool. That's all I have. Okay, we need some actions to move forward to the board, so. Yeah. I think that we can send these recommendations onto the full board. Okay. And which recommendations are you? These. Oh, sorry. Yep. Let me look here. Updates need to be made on it. Okay. Or if you should coordinate and work to address the audit. Good. But are we going to send also this response document as well? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, yeah. That's broad. But is it narrowly scoped enough that we know what we're doing? I mean, honestly, this is one of those moments where I think about our role as board members. I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done that, you know, we're going to be checking and having them report back. But I, and offer suggestions, but I don't think that until those rules come up, until those, we need that legislative changes. Right. I'm not sure what our role is outside of the work that's already being done. And I wrote down, this is what I wrote down, this is why I'm thinking this, improve services administered to students and consistency of programs. That seems broad, but maybe it does, right? That would be one of the broad things I think we're, I'm hearing is that those, that consistency of services. Funding is addressed in the 9-1-1, right? Uh-huh. Okay. So those, those things are already built there. It's not that we don't have, it's not that our courses and our CTE programs aren't good. It's more about, are they effective and are they, I mean, are they providing what's needed for the workforce? Right. And are they like, you know, are they just classes to have CTE classes or are they classes that are aligned and actually lead to certificates or pathways? Is that framed in, do you feel like that's framed in there? Well, I guess needs to address the audit kind of covers it, I suppose. Okay. That's what I'm saying though, is that too broad? Is that, that's my question. Let's repeat yours again. So mine had to do with improving services, student services and consistency within programs. But maybe that's too broad. So yeah. Yeah. Leanne, Joanne. I have a question. Yes, go ahead. We're thinking on that. Let me see if we can. Some things that had stood out to me though about the audit and as we're trying to figure out and, you know, these numbers, it says low, low participation rates, how we approach that, you know, down the road. And the second is the financial part of this of CTE is really, I don't know if I should say concerning, but it did, it kept saying that there's a redundancy in funding. When is that included here? And what is our plan to figure that out and kind of sort out what that is and what's going on? Sure. So participation ratio, I believe you have to think about it in a couple of different ways. If you look course by course by course, there may be some courses that have low enrollments overall. And as staff, we need to look at that and decide whether they're applicable. It may just be that they're only used in one or two schools where that particular pathway, that particular course is applicable to their needs as a community. So you would expect to see lower numbers. Maybe it's just outdated and we need to do away with it or update it. And we haven't looked at that quite yet, right? Not yet. Okay. That's part of our process as we go to update pathways a year from now. Overall, enrollment in CTE, despite the declining enrollment in education, public education in the state of Utah, CTE participation enrollment continues to increase year over year. So as a whole, students are continuing to take classes. They're continuing to certify to gain those third-party credentials. The apprenticeship numbers and work-based learning numbers continue to go up. All of those things are increasing. So what that tells me is that students are finding value in them. Okay. So I have one that I think I would like to add then, and I think it captures a little bit of what we're talking about here. It hasn't come yet. Okay. We'll wait just a second. I just sent it. So it has that delayed start, right, or delayed return to make sure it's not coming. There it goes. Go ahead. Yeah, you know, I just -- I don't know. I guess it's just in response to what we're seeing, like the decline in public education or -- but the increase in CTE. I would want to rally the troops that we continue to do everything that we possibly can to continue to add value to the foundational academic subjects and that, you know, our community at large, the state of Utah knows that if they want, you know, that sure foundation of academics that they can find it in our institutions. And so I just -- that's the rally call there for that because it's very important. You know, if they feel like they're not getting that, then I hope we can continue to address it and ask why and fortify that. And obviously, you know, you have to consider also the dialogue that exists out in the community as well that, you know, schools is irrelevant. It was built for this model or that model. I know that there's a lot of arguments that exist there, and parents are trying to sort that. So they're saying that CTE is something that holds like a monetary or career value for them eventually. But what I've always believed, and I still believe, that a good working mind and a person that will contribute positively to society has a very strong foundational skills for the academics, the math, the reading, the writing. So anyway, onward we go. Okay. Very good. I would recommend we add improve alignment with workforce needs and consistency within CTE programs. Yeah. And reporting. And reporting. Okay. Consistent -- okay. So it would be the needs, consistency within CTE programs, and reporting? Is that what you do? Okay. And reporting. Well, can I just make a comment, too? Yeah. I think it also stood out in the audit how important the foundation from elementary classes is leading up to CTE, that they have that foundational academic reading, writing, numeracy, before -- you know, for success in life in anything, higher ed, trades, whatever, having a foundation of being able to read and write and do your math, you know, do math -- have math skills. Those were all -- they're important building blocks. But I think these look like good starting points. Okay. Are there any other modifications anybody wants to make to this list of recommendations? And I'll read them -- well, let me read them publicly and then if there's further discussion. So the one is that -- one is work to determine what updates need to be made to R277-911 -- we should put the title of that in there, whatever the title of that rule is so that people know what we're talking about -- to address the audit. Number two is work with YUSHI to coordinate -- and let's spell that out, too. I know who we know -- we know who YUSHI is. Just -- if we can put it in the acronym there. -- to coordinate the work to address the audit. And then on three would be develop a work -- sorry -- stakeholder work group to provide recommendations and consider needs to address the audit. And then four, provide periodic updates to the committee on the work to address the audit. And then five would be improve alignment with workforce needs and consistency within CTE programs and reporting. I have a question. Does YUSHI include the technical colleges? Are there part of that as well? Yes. I'm getting a confirmation that that's a yes. That is true. And R277-911, the name is Secondary Career and Technical Education. Okay. For the meeting minutes. So Secondary Career and Technical Education is the rule that we referenced for the public. And then I have a question on timelines for this. What does this look like for everybody to address these? Well, the 9/11 and the work group, we will be working on that now to fall. And so that will be ready to report back in fall. The work with YUSHI started years ago and will continue even in a more rigorous fashion forever and ever. That's kind of ongoing. It is an ongoing process. Periodic updates to the committee will come back as often as you would like us to. Okay. And the same with number five as well. That's an ongoing process that we'll report on as often as you would like. Can I clarify, too, then, what working with YUSHI looks like? Is it a monthly meeting? Is it kind of a call to action, like as needed? What side? I'll let Deputy Superintendent Voorhees respond and then I can probably add a few thoughts. So the administration of YUSHI and us, the superintendents, are meeting almost every other week at present. So we're meeting a lot. So you guys have kind of a map on how to address? We're trying to put together, actually, a framework for moving forward, which we would then bring forward to you and to their board because they have a board as well. And if we, as we continue, because, you know, there's a lot of layers to this audit, even just for us, as we come across things, who would be the best person to kind of stay in contact? Like if we had wanted to run something past YUSHI, who is it that we could reach out to to get that messaging? Right now, it's probably me. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. We'll go ahead and take a vote on these recommendations. Do you feel like I need to read them again? Are we good? I don't see anybody saying I have to read them again. Okay. All right. So the recommendations before the body are these five recommendations. They'll be moved forward to the full board for our June meeting. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. That passes unanimously. And we are going to move on. We don't need a break yet, right? Sometimes I forget we need a break. Okay. We're going to move on to our next item. Our next item is R277705 Secondary School Completion and Diplomas. And Jennifer Watson. Jennifer Wadsworth, Policy Advisor. This is a change that came about due to legislation. House Bill 502 changed the way that we are doing the test out option for our core classes. So the major changes you're going to see in here is the definition for core classes. And then on line 116, or sorry, 188 is where we talk about the test out option for those core classes. It's not very detailed only because it's covered later in 404 of how those options will be offered to our LEAs. And then on line 116, we've added the 83 class hours equals one full credit that was also in 502. Those are the major changes. Those are the major changes. Okay. I had one note. Let me look down mine. If there's anyone else that has comments on this. Oh, there was a question on line 188 if we need to indicate when that would be starting. So 2027, 28? For the test out option. Yes. That's a good point. In accordance with, let's see, right here in the packet. That's the packet method. In accordance with Section 53E 4209, an LEA shall offer and administer statewide test out options for core classes. The question is, do we want to put when that is beginning? We definitely can. Because it won't be this year. We can amend that. Yeah. Can we amend that to add in there, I think it's 2027, 2028, right? Beginning in 2027, 2028. Just a clarity piece there. So people know that we have another year for that to start. Are there any additional questions or feedback? Board Member Green, you have something? I do. I know I'm like hovering over the button. Yeah. How do I ask this? I think just kind of an overall. Could somebody share that overall, that overview of what this means, the 83 hours, the test out, the core class? Like it's kind of-- Let's ask the questions on this. Okay. Just so anybody that is tuning in, they understand. Kathy Gray, do you want to come up in case we have questions that you might be-- Hooray. I was just going to say, if we could call up Kathy Gray. And there she is. Yeah. Let's ask all the questions. Let's go out in the public. So if there's some uncertainty on something, we're throwing that out there. Thank you. Kathy Gray, concurrent enrollment and graduation specialist for the USBE. So this is actually a very interesting wording choice in the bill because it does specifically say class hours. It does not say instructional hours. It's a completely separate thing. And so as I have been going through and trying to find out how many class hours students have in any particular schedule in the LEAs across the state, what I have found is if it says class hours, that's not passing time. That's not lunch time. That's not field trips. And so when I was doing the mathematics of, okay, how many different things are out there, I actually left in passing times and lunch and found that only one LEA that I could discover could meet that in half a year. And that was a trimester system on a daily five schedule could make the 83 hours in less than a full year. And so knowing that when I left passing times and lunch and all those things in, that's something I'd like clarity with is, okay, was class hours truly meant to be not even instructional hours, but time in a classroom? I don't have clarity. I don't have clarity. I am seeking it. So let me understand what you're saying. You're saying there was only one district that you found that actually met the criteria that was established in law for classes? Is that what I meant? In order to offer a full credit in anything less than a school year. Because if you think about it, there are schools that have double blocking, for instance. They, you know, core classes, they will have two periods of, things like that. Those could be added together, I suppose. But, yeah. It's really double blocking. Yeah. It's really double blocking. Exactly. I have a question of, you know, concurrent enrollment. Those are, those are semester length classes. And LEAs have the option, have had the option in the past, to provide one credit for it or a half a credit for it. As I look at this, I, we have special schools that are kind of a carve out for that. So our alternative schools will be okay. You know, they have many terms in order to support students. Concurrent enrollment, you know, I'm waiting for clarity on that. Deputy Voorhees says that that is a conversation with you, she currently. But I'm looking to you for clarity. Great. And how, does this impact four day school weeks differently as well? I don't know. It, it would. Because it's class hours. You'd still have to meet the hours. So does, does that mean that a four day school week is at a disadvantage or it's going to take longer? I, I also am aware though that four day school weeks can, can add that 30 to 60 minute timeframe on the four days. So they're, you know, starting earlier and ending later to accommodate that. Does that affect it? The short answer is yes, but I'd like to give a little caveat to that. Because one of the more popular schedules is an A day, B day, a four by four in a five day school week. That, that's pretty traditional for the Wasatch Front anyway. That's probably the most generous amount of time in a classroom that there is. Because if you have a daily seven, those, those periods are shorter, right? That kind of thing. So even with the most generous time periods in a classroom that I could find, they didn't meet it either. So they're not at any other disadvantage when even the most generous one can't make it either, if that makes sense. So yes, it would impact that. Okay. But everyone's impacted. How did this happen? Okay. Thank you. Okay. So you're, are you asking us for clarity on whether to include those other provisions in class time? It's in law now. Yeah. Specific. Okay. I think it would just be more like I'm looking for what you would like me to message to the field. If it is what it is, LEAs will need to understand that it will take more than a semester to offer one full credit of anything. And if that was the bill sponsor's intent, then that will, that is the impact. But it won't be LEAs being able to say, we, we think this, we're going to do this and we're still going to offer a full credit for it. Essentially what we've done is we've moved away from competency in the standards as what provides credit to that and seat time in a classroom. Okay. I don't, I don't know that I have that much feedback on this yet. That's, that's the tricky thing is I don't, I haven't heard much from the field yet on this. So it's really hard to say this is the impact. It sounds like you've spent a lot of time looking into it. Anyways, I don't, I'm not sure. What is being offered in the rule is what the bill has. Yeah. And that the bill is law now. So, you know, this part is just the mechanics, the moving forward with clarity can come in a different conversation. Okay. And I mean, this is a month before it goes through the board. If there's some need for that, hopefully those in the field that are listening or in this room, I'm looking at you, Lexi, can get us some, you know, more substantial recommendations that are actually, you know, impacting people. I just don't know how, right, without sitting down and doing everybody's schedule and everything, right, what that looks like. Or if there's a need for us to create greater clarity here. So if, if those that are listening could kind of evaluate this and see if there's a need for some greater clarity. And I do think Jennifer had something for us. I do. So in counseling with our AAG and looking at the code itself, the wording is the number of credits required to graduate high school based on a one credit representing at least 83 class hours in lieu of a requirement of days or instructional hours. Our AAG feels that that allows the LEA some autonomy to either choose the 180 days or the 83 hours. So what we could do is alter this language that we've just suggested be amended to the rule to make it clear that it's in lieu of. So if an LEA is choosing the 180, the 83 hours does not apply. Okay. Correct. Okay. Okay. Okay. So where would we need to create that clarity? So that would be on line 116, which I think was just on the screen. So where it says for grades 9 through 12, one unit of credit is at least 83 class hours in an attendance validated program. We could add an amendment there to say in lieu of 180 day requirements. So it does actually say consistent with 53F. So it does cite the code that says in lieu of. But I think we probably want greater. But we can add it ourselves. Yeah. Yeah. What words am I putting in lieu of? I'm going to maybe let Chair Earl make that motion. Yeah, yeah. I can make it. Where did you want to put it in? So where? So one unit credit. Yeah. I think I should call in lieu of 180 hours. Yeah. So on line 117. Okay. So what we're doing is -- does that work? Yeah. What's your feedback? Do you have a comment on that? You got it. Oh, there's probably too many of them. Oh, grab another one. Oh, there we go. Okay. Sorry about that. So this does clarify quite a bit. May I ask a question? Yes. So you have hours and required days or this. That's what in lieu of. You get this or this. So let's say an LEA is like, we're going to do the 83 hours in lieu of 180 days. 83 hours is a reduction in a year's amount of hours. Does that make sense? Where if they say, okay, we're no longer held to the 180 days. We're going to do 83 hours for a full credit. Does this open a new type of formula for a school to build around where we're not a September to May 31st thing. We're now a school that's September to March. That's my question. Does that open that up for a possibility? And maybe that's a desired outcome. But I just have the question. I would think that it would. Or at least I don't see that people wouldn't start talking about that or looking at it that way as you actually look at the logistics of creating this. The other thing I wondered how that impacts, and maybe I'm totally off in my field, like if they finish that, how does that affect the other possible classes that they'd fill their schedule with? Like if it did go to September to March, then they've got a .25 credit left that they could fill that time with or it just opens up the time. That's a very interesting thing. And what you've kind of described is the trimester system. And that's why the one LEA that's on a daily five, if they moved to a daily six, they wouldn't meet it. But a daily five, two trimesters meets the 83-hour requirement. And so in a trimester system, that's what you've described is that third trimester, what would a school use it for? And they do various different things. If I remember correctly, I'm just trying to think out loud. Part of the argument for this was to make sure that classes were not getting shortchanged. Because what we were having was trimesters, right, just that, or reduction of a class, even though they may have had the full, you know, I don't know. I guess that doesn't, it doesn't work because it's in lieu of. But it was just still making sure there was enough content days, right, seat time that it was, they were able to adequately cover content. So, okay, I'm just thinking back as now I'm remembering some of that discussion. So, I did, and once again, we're going to, we're going to get additional feedback. And perhaps next, Jill, there'll be a little bit of modification of this or not during the legislative session. But it's good, this is good questions. So, okay, I, yeah. Does anybody know, like, what triggered this? Like, what big concern kind of spurred this? I can't speak to the actual big concern, but I do know in the wording itself in the code, he does say allowing flexibility. So, there was probably something that came up that he felt like there were schools who needed that flexibility and didn't have it. And this was the answer to that. But, again, I don't know the catalyst. I'm sorry. Okay. All right. I would like to make this motion and then we can, if there's additional changes to it, we can do that. I move that we add at the beginning, at beginning in the 2027-28 school year, did we already vote on that? No. No. Okay. To line 118 and then on line 117 add in lieu of requirements of days after attendance validated programs. I am not seeing any hands. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Okay. I believe that passed unanimously. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Okay. Any other questions or comments related to this? I do. Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry. This one was interesting to me. Is there anything else that you've seen? Because you've obviously done some deep digging here on this. Any questions that we should be considering or asking kind of in the next 30 days? I'm not putting you on the spot. You don't have to think of any. But if you do, please email us like on this because this is just really unique. I find it very relevant because we are seeing so many school districts or schools that are asking to go to the four day. And, you know, again, like what I had mentioned earlier, there's just this whole conversation around what school should look like, what it should offer, you know, the time frames or what we're trying to get out of it. So I just find it very interesting. This is a completely different model than what I've considered before. Yeah, absolutely. There isn't anything at this time. What I am seeing is directly related to the bill and would need to be in here anyway. But as I continue doing things, I would be happy to share any information I have or questions from the field. Especially warnings or, hey, this isn't really working right because I think the best stuff that we can, you know, talk to. Awesome. That would be great. Yeah, I'd be happy to. Great. Thank you. I do have one question with the test out option. So I'm down further, 188. What are the parameters? Do we need to put parameters in here? What are the parameters of that? Can a student just come in and say, I'm going to test out today and then they come in the next day. I'm going to test out and then they're going to test out. Do you know what I mean? For the same test? Do we have any? Will those be in a standard operating procedure? Will you be bringing back those testing recommendations to us? Mm-hmm. Does that make any sense? Megan? I'm just curious because those are the questions that ran through my mind. Yeah. Yeah. I'd like just to make sure that Megan is a part of that conversation. Okay. About the demonstrated competency assessments that we already have. As we spoke earlier, we already have a basic framework of demonstrated competency assessments for all the core courses that are listed in this rule. Megan, do you want to speak to anything about a standard operating procedure, how that's going? So we do have resources available already. Those may just need to be tightened up a little bit. Mr. Chair, if I may, we will have a deeper discussion in 404 later on today. But Megan definitely should speak to it. But there will be another discussion. For sure. Megan Everett, Director of Teaching and Learning. So we do have demonstrated competency assessments, as Kathy indicated, that are right now how a student might be able to show that they have competency in that area. What we are concerned about just taking them, picking them up, and using them for a test out option is, do they have the same level of rigor that we would expect of the completion of the full year course? Are they standardized in the same way? Do they have some of those checks for validity that we would have in like year-end assessments? And so we've been working with Sid McCarty, Director of Assessment, in some of those considerations, and also how secure the environment is. Right now we put them out and we rely on LEAs to implement them properly because we're offering them as a service. They could also make their own. But if this is coming from the state level as a test out option, we want to make sure that it meets kind of that high level that we would expect. Okay. Okay. And it sounds like we'll get into that maybe a little bit more in a minute. So I apologize if I jump the gun there. They're kind of interwoven, right? The two rules. So. All right. Any additional pieces on this one before we move it forward? Okay. Just a quick question. Yes. Do we need to refer to those as demonstrated competencies? I mean, that sounds like a better terminology to use, but maybe we're just using the terms that are already in the new statute. But, like, that was interesting to me that we have already have these things in place, but we call them something differently. It is directly from the bill. It does say test out. Okay. We refer to them as demonstrated competency assessments. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Very good. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Looking for a motion from the committee. Is it on there? Yep. If someone wants to read it. Yeah. Go ahead. Do you want to turn on your? Yeah. That the committee approves R277705 secondary school completion and diplomas draft one as amended on first reading and forward to the board for approval on second and final reading. All those in favor? Aye. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. That's passed unanimously. Okay. Okay. Is it possible? Can we go down to that one? Yeah. And do that one next so that we're kind of putting a -- it would be -- Probably. Sid. Sid. Yeah. But Megan, you could stay. Sid. Yeah. But Megan, you could stay. Sidney and Cart. It would be R277-2404. I am not sure if we have Sidney. Oh, do we need to wait on that one? I may need to go grab her. Yeah. She might be in finance. I just thought if we're -- maybe finish out that in one piece. Okay. Okay. Okay. So we're going to go ahead and do that one? Yeah. And do that one next so that we're kind of putting a -- it would be -- Probably. Sid. Yeah. But Megan, you could stay. Sidney and Cart. That's -- it would be R277-2404. I am not sure if we have Sidney. Oh, do we just need -- do we need to wait on that one? I may need to go grab her. Yeah, she might be in finance. Okay. That's fine. All right. All right. We'll continue on, and then -- well, we'll just pick that up when we get there, then. The next one is a sensitive materials model policy update. And we have two individuals that will be talking to that. And just for the public to know, a model policy is a recommended policy, but it is not something that families can -- they can look at, they can review, they can consider. It's not rule or law. I had a conversation with a phone call from someone last night that thought maybe it was law. I said, that is not the case, but it is a recommended policy. So -- okay. Let me pull up my document here. Do you want to go ahead and just introduce yourself? And then maybe tell us what your recommendations were in here, in the policy, or if there's any feedback you want to give us before we start. So -- Do you want to press the button? Yeah. Press the button. It should go green. Oh, it's -- I know that one's having trouble. There you go. There you go. Good morning. This is Davina Southoff, Library Media Specialist for Teaching and Learning. Happy to be here. The first draft of the model policy basically was created from the original model policy that we had and then aligned with code that was passed in 2024. And so I know there's been some reiteration since then. So that's probably all I want to say to that, just so we can move forward. I just have one question on it. It included -- the recommended draft from staff included something around a new category of age-appropriate content. Where did that come from? That's not in law. That's not -- you know, I -- so I didn't know where that was stemming from. I'm glad you asked that question. So one of the things that has been happening since the law went into effect is that -- well, first of all, schools and LEAs have an -- whenever they have a challenge, it isn't always about sensitive materials. It's often about age-appropriateness. And so we'll move a book from the elementary school to the middle school to the high school. So LEAs have had some challenges in how to navigate that. And so when they only have a sensitive materials policy, it creates complication for making decisions. It makes it so that they don't know exactly how to navigate that process because it is different and it has different requirements. And then if we're having a model policy, it really should align with best practice when we talk about how we navigate libraries in regular space without -- even before we had sensitive materials policies or legislation. So I was just thinking about if we're going to offer this model policy to our LEAs, that would be best practice for how they're going to navigate all of the different scenarios that might come when it comes to a challenge for a title in a school. Then it would be appropriate to include an age-appropriate review or developmentally appropriate review for those titles. Because it does look differently. And with sensitive materials, we just remove things if it becomes -- if it's determined to be sensitive materials. And that isn't always the case for age-appropriate materials. All right. I -- yeah, I feel like I'm not really a fan of the age-appropriate. And there's a reason why it just makes this whole policy more complicated. It's like we've got -- instead of three working groups now, we have a fourth working group. And then there becomes this question around -- and this happened during the legislative session. I think a similar type of language was meant to be put into or considered. It becomes -- it's like do we circumvent it being evaluated through the sensitive materials by just saying, well, it's not age-appropriate for this one, but it could be age-appropriate for that. So now it's adding a new layer of complexity that I'm not sure we want to -- I don't know if it solves a problem or creates more problems. That's what -- I guess that's why I'm trying to figure out the age-appropriateness and what is age-appropriate. How do you determine that? That's the big question, whereas these other pieces are clearly defined in law. But age-appropriate can be -- one educator may -- it may feel like this is age-appropriate for, you know, seven-year-olds. Another one may not. So it then adds a very subjective -- which is the reason why it should fall somehow under the subjective review. So that's where I'm trying to -- I'm trying to kind of parse that out. And that's why I was wondering where it came from because it adds an element of nuance complexity that wasn't there. And now we have a new definition of something that's age-appropriate, which we've always struggled with what is age-appropriate. So trying to make sure that we -- so anyways, I'm only asking because I'm trying to make sure I understand where we -- why we landed there. Or the recommended. Yeah. Am I okay to respond? I have some thoughts about that. Yeah, yeah. That would be great. And I love a good conversation about what's best for libraries. So, yeah, I appreciate your question. I actually think, like, this has been a confusion for LEAs, not knowing -- like, they'll get a challenge, and it won't say sensitive materials. It'll say, I don't think this is appropriate for middle school or elementary. And then they don't know how to navigate that because many of them, particularly smaller districts and charter schools, have taken our model policy and adopted it. And then when they get a challenge that says it's not sensitive materials, they're not sure how to navigate it. So I actually think it's more clear for libraries to be able to have that designation there, especially because not everyone -- with our larger -- with our larger districts, they have, you know, staff that can navigate a challenge and move forward that way. But with smaller districts, like, this model policy is what they're using. And so it is something that we use on a regular basis in school libraries. And I personally think it is more clear because when they get a sensitive materials challenge that's really an age-appropriate challenge, they get -- it gives them some direction on how to navigate that. Why wouldn't that fall under this -- I'm just asking the question, so don't take it as defensive or anything. No, no, no, no. Why wouldn't that fall under as subjective? Because it is -- it's just that. It is subjective, meaning it doesn't have a hard line. Yeah. Right? So you're having to look at -- and from what I'm looking at, the criteria was you're looking at, is it meet the community standards, right? And that's -- do you see what I'm saying? So why would it not fall under that more subjective? And why could we not put the, you know, retain -- why could we not put those provisions right there? So we're not creating more -- yeah. I'm just realizing I don't have to hold this button down in order to talk. Oh, yeah, yeah. You don't have to hold the button down. You can use your hands all you want. Yeah, sorry. Yeah. So subjective sensitive materials is written in code. There's definitions for that. And so a committee is going to look at -- they should be trained in looking at subjective sensitive materials based on what's written in code. And then we have age appropriateness, which historically we have had a definition of age appropriateness. But we have committees. Like a committee who looks at age appropriateness, it's not just one person making that decision. It's not just an educator. It is still a group of people, you know, five to seven people that are making an evaluation about that. And I've seen some really positive things come out of those conversations where I remember one committee was looking at a title and the parents on the committee -- it had some suicide in this text. And the parents thought, well, this book is really valuable to our high school students. And so they made some suggestions in that committee to put a QR code at the beginning of the book where it went to the counselor or it went to online resources for if you're having thoughts about suicide, how to get support and resources for that. And so I think that -- I think we can trust -- I mean, if we're trusting our committees and parents to be a part of a sensitive materials review, I think we can trust committees to be a part of an age appropriate review and make decisions for their communities that may move a title from an elementary school to a middle school to serve the students better. All right. That was an interesting one for me as well. And I have five kids and, you know, my -- I don't know, I've -- every kid is so different on the -- just even on the age appropriateness. And I've gone through four of those maturation program discussions, you know, and one was just beet reddened because she wanted to ask me this crazy question if she could wear eye shadow, you know? Like, and the other one was like putting everything together. I'm like, it's so different on the whole age appropriateness because technically they were both the same age, completely different experiences. And so for me, the way that I organize it in my head maybe is a little bit more along the lines of what member Earl is saying. So age appropriateness is just going to differ for -- just across the board, same age, completely different on the age appropriateness depending on the student. So how are we trying to address what we're doing? And for me, it's around the sensitive materials and the subjective materials. So for me, that's the issue, even more than the age appropriateness, again, because that's just going to differ. And so what is it we're trying to do? We're trying to address the other two categories. So I don't know. Chair Earl? Yeah, go ahead. Maybe we can just like table that part and pull, you know, like just table the age appropriateness and look at the rest of it. Well, let's do it then. Because I feel like -- I see both. I think if it is going to cause confusion or if it's going to cause contention or anything in that way with age appropriateness, then I'm happy to pull it from there and not include it at this time, even though I can see exactly why you put it in there. You're like, well, this is something that comes up a lot. That's why we have people out there telling us what to put in here. But there's so much more. So I feel like if we just table that part and talk about the other pieces. All right. Let's -- well, I'm going to -- I'd like to move draft two, and then we have -- gives us something to work from. So -- and then if we just want to start at the top. My draft two. Is it -- say draft one on it? It does. It says draft one on it. Oh. It says member earl draft. So that's -- Oh, yeah, yeah. Member earl draft, whatever that is. Yeah. Sorry. I guess it wouldn't be a draft two because it hasn't gone through any drafting yet, right? So -- and then we can just -- we can just kind of hammer through the pieces here. So -- okay. So we're just going to start at the very top. Model library materials policy guidance. So I just took out the shoulds and put it -- just a statement. Shoulds suggest that you can do this, right, versus -- you know, so local administrators ensure that educators comply with -- that should and should -- it just -- should just -- it feels like a weak statement. So I just would recommend that in that first section that we take out, should, and on the cost when we place that shall. Is it -- is it -- I just want clarification. Does it require in law that it's reviewed annually? No. What would that need to be, then? Does it need to be -- I wonder -- because, like, what is the process of review for each LEA? Is that going to their board each year? It feels a little -- it feels like a lot. But -- To have that shall there? I'm fine with the other shoulds. Yeah. The bottom one is the one I'm trying to figure out if that needs to be annual. Clear at the bottom? Is that what -- Well, the LEA governing board. It's three. There's three -- Yeah. No, go up. Go up. Go up. Go up. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Right there. It's -- I mean, you guys, it depends. Do we think that we're going to have tons of changes? We've had so many changes to sensitive materials and reading materials over the last few years. But I wonder if there's going to be enough to have to review. Or maybe it could be should annually review the LEA or during instances of state and federal law changes or something. Let's see. And LEA's -- -- changes or something. Yeah. Annual review. What do you -- do you have an opinion on what that needs to be there? I mean, that's what we had before. I don't -- I guess in general, yeah, I don't know if it needs to annually be updated. They don't annually update all their other policies either. No, they don't. And that is from the original model policy. Yeah. That's where that came from. I think it would be important to review when legislation changes and -- We could put that then. So maybe that's what it needs to be. And LEA's governing board shall review upon legislative changes, something like that. Does that -- Chair. Yes. Yeah. Chair, I think you could put an LEA's governing board shall review the LEA's library policy for alignment. Oh, it wouldn't need to -- then we wouldn't -- we just take out the annually piece. Yeah, I think you could take out the annually or as required upon state -- like changes with state and federal law or -- you know, because I think you don't need to say annually. Okay. -- there. I think you're right because in a review, the LEA's library policy for alignment with state and federal -- so as it changes, they would -- so we just need to strike annually. So, yeah. Okay. So I would recommend -- So -- Okay. Hang on just a sec. I've got that. I have that right now. Okay. So do you want to move draft two and then play with it first? Yes. Or do you want to move it with this -- you want to move draft two with this amendment and then play with it? Do you see what I'm saying? Oh, so we need to make a motion to move this. Okay. Your draft first. Yes. And then this would be the first amendment. Okay. Correct? Yes. Okay. Is that working for you, that book? Is it charging up in here? I don't think it is. I didn't know that until now, but -- There is one back here. Oh, it's not plugged in. It's not plugged in. It's not plugged in. All right. Sorry. We got it. Okay. Yes. Okay. Someone -- Yeah, now it's on. I'm glad you caught that. So -- Okay. So the motion would be to move -- move to adopt member oral draft one model policy. We need to adopt that first, and then we'd be working from it. So all those in favor of adopting member oral draft one policy? Aye. Aye. No. No. Okay. Well, hold on one minute. Okay. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Those opposed? No. No. No. So that passes three to two. And at board member Brenton, board member Earl, and board member -- And for clarification, it's because I want to move my draft. Yeah. Okay. And then the no's were board member -- oh, my gosh, now I've got to look -- real and wood. Yes. Thank you. Oh, it's up there on the board. Okay. So then the recommendation would -- the first motion would be under the model. It would be that first section. I don't know that we've titled it anything. In the instructions. In the instructions. There we go. To remove the two shoulds and to strike through shall and annually. Oh. Gotcha. So then it would -- someone would have to unstrike it if they were going to use it. Okay. Yeah. So the motion would -- the amendment would be to strike shall and annually in the instructions section. Are there any questions? No. Let's look at it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. We just want to strike annually because you still want them to -- Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry. Yeah. So just annually. You're right. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Any discussion to the instructions section? Okay. All those in favor of passing the instructions section with striking annually? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. That passes unanimously. We'll go down to the library policy section one. And the first recommendation is on -- is adding a B. I don't think you have to do that. Ah, you're right. You're right. Okay. So -- Yep. You're right. Sorry. Because we've already moved the draft. You're helping me. Nope. Unless you want to change it. Okay. Are there any other -- well, let's just go to section one, library policy. There you go. Are there any modifications here that anybody has? I have an amendment. Let's look. Okay. Okay. Um, to change section one B to what I'm going to send to Leah right now? Should I send it to you, Leah? Mm-hmm. Okay. Yeah, it teams it, actually. Yeah, I will. That's what I'm going to do. Okay. Wow, the colors didn't come through. Darn it. It's okay. Yeah, I can fix that. Okay. Sorry, there's a second half that just -- it ran to the next page. Okay. So, I can speak to this. So, on that section, I kept the beginning part of what Member Earl had adjusted. And then I changed the language in the second part to have a responsibility to curate materials that directly support curriculum, literacy, and the student well-being, learning, and interests. And I reached out to over 20 librarians across the state at different LEAs and the Utah School Library Association for feedback on that. And I got some really great feedback on the interests part of it because they want kids to read not always just about, like, you know, research or whatnot, but, like, things that they're interested in. Like, I, for one, remember my childhood memories as going to the library and reading Sports Illustrated for kids all the time because I love sports. And so, those interests, they say that really helps, like, create a lot of excitement for reading. So, that's why I added that. Let's see. So, that's the first part. And then the second part is changing it to school libraries are curated learning environment -- are curated with a transparent process with parents and supportive -- with -- sorry. My strikethrough is, like, very faint. School libraries are curated with a transparent process with parents, period. Or -- sorry. School libraries are curated with a transparent process, period. And then the rest of this is gone. Yes. Okay, thank you. My strikethrough is so faint. Yeah. I like the part about adding in the interest, Sarah, as you're talking. I mean, I do think it's so important for students to want to read something, if it's all. And so, I -- the only boys my -- books my boys were open to had to do with sports. Yep. So, I found out Ken Griffey Jr. and I had the same birthday. I just felt like it was a little simplified, and it didn't seem -- you know, it just opened it up a little bit more to being, you know, holistically about what our libraries are about. Okay. Any other comments on those recommendations? No, I think those are good recommendations. I don't have a problem with those, and I like adding the transparent process. Okay. All right. So, let me go ahead and read through this. So, it would be changing B, and B would now read LEA name. Schools operate within limited instructional time. Staffing and budget resources, educators, and library personnel have a responsibility to curate materials that directly support curriculum literacy and student well-being, learning, and interest, and that can be delivered appropriately in a school setting. School libraries are curated with a transparent process. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Any opposed? Was that unanimous or -- Nay. Nay. Okay. Okay. There was four in favor, one opposition, the opposition being Board Member Green. And then -- That sentence might -- that paragraph might need to be cleaned up a little bit more before next month. That's fine. It's like run on, run on, run on. Yeah, I know. I know. It is clunky. It's clunky, but yeah. So if there's any recommendations before -- Yeah. And then I'm not going to -- I have an amendment to C, but I'm not going to do it because I think we're tabling the age of program. We can have that conversation later. And then on D, I have an amendment to basically strike on Member Earle's -- so keep what she said, "This policy prioritizes protecting children from sensitive materials deemed harmful to minors, period." I think there's a lot of opportunity to talk about the harmful effects of pornography, but I just felt like it was sort of preachy and weird and out of place in this policy to make emphasis on this. It's actually in the law. Yeah. Right. But do we need to say it explicitly right there? Like, it's because the library policy is about the library, right? It's not just about pornography. Like, this policy covers a lot of things. Obviously, there's sensitive materials, but it just -- I don't know. I got some feedback from some librarians that felt like that was like -- it felt like they were -- it just seemed like -- Being reminded? No. I mean, you don't have to be reminded. I mean, I think that there's plenty of reasons that there's things there. But it just felt a little preachy in a way, but understanding there are, you know, harmful effects, but it just didn't feel like it was the right tone for this policy. Okay. Any other comments to that? Sensitive materials deemed harmful to minors includes a lot of things, and it encompasses that. So did you -- you made a motion? Is that right? Yes. Okay. We're just not saying it. And actually, this doesn't mean you blew it anymore because we already -- Yeah. I would just speak against it, but I'll listen to other people. That's fine. We can vote on it. Yeah. Okay. Are we ready to vote, then? Let me go ahead and read it. So the -- it would change D in Section 1 to -- oh, what are we looking at here? This policy prioritizes protecting children from sensitive materials deemed harmful to minors. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. All those opposed? Aye. No. No. Board Member Brent, will you tell us how you voted? Were you -- I voted aye. Okay. So that one passes 3-2. Those in favor -- well, those opposed is probably easier to read, but is Board Member Green and Board Member Earl. Okay. Next. Section 2, I had some slight amendments, but it does -- well, I'll tell you, my one amendment was -- so -- okay. So there's this -- this feedback that I got from the librarians was talking about how they felt -- they felt like they -- with this policy, as it was written from this draft, that they felt like they lost a lot of their autonomy. You know, our librarians are trained professionals. Most of them have master's degrees. And if they're, you know, only recommending books, then, like, a big, huge piece of their job is taken and their whole purpose and role and the way that they see their role within the school as librarians. And so the two pieces to this is that it's not just review and recommend, but that review and select. And the other part of it is this 30-day input. So the process for the 30-day that was included in your draft to include that. And there are a lot of reasons why I think the 30 days is not a great addition to this policy. Davis School District has instituted a 5- to 10-day waiting period where they ask for input. And I heard from a bunch of Davis librarians, current librarians in Davis School District, and they all said that, one, it causes a lot of delays when they're trying to purchase books. So as they, you know, the Scholastic Book Fair comes in and the Scholastic dude is like, hey, we have, you know, these 10 dinosaur pop-up books and we can give them to you to add to your library. The students seem to be loving them for a discounted price today. The librarian in that moment has to say, well, okay, maybe, but I have to go wait for five to 10 days and get input before we buy this dinosaur pop-up book or whatever it is. And so they are losing a lot of opportunities to buy books at a discounted rate. And then another big piece of that is that they said that since Davis School District has instituted this five to 10-day, they found like it's been a completely unnecessary part of the process because every time they put it out for review, they get no response from anyone about the book. So it just felt a little arbitrary. And then, you know, I think that one thing to look more holistically in the big picture is that we have had so many changes to our sensitive material law over the last five or six years. And I hear from educators, I hear from librarians, I hear from administrators that they're still very confused with the current law because it is really complex. And listen, remember Earl and I spent a month of our life reviewing the sensitive materials rule. And so I can see why it's so confusing. And this just adds another complexity to it. And then it just is a lot more time and resources that, you know, we're finding that our schools are lacking time and resources and we have a lot of unfunded mandates that keep getting thrown on our schools. And I think I'm leaning towards sticking to the sensitive material code, sticking to the sensitive material rule that we've written and not adding any additional complexities to any of our processes within our libraries and our collection. So in this, the amendment that I have is striking the 30-day and taking away the recommend and saying what it had originally, which is select. But then keeping member Earl's amendments about trained on this policy and create a collection that adheres to Utah law so that that's really clear. So I can send that to you, Leah. So I have your draft, if you just tell me where it is, I can copy-paste. Okay, it's section 2A. You got it. Okay. Board member Brenton, did you have a question or a comment? Yeah, I guess I just wanted to pose the question. I think the reason for the 30-day input was a desire to have parents be accountable because often we just hear the complaints from the parents who want to have the books reviewed. But if at the front end they had the process and we could say, well, it was open for review and nobody gave any and nobody had any input, then it would hold the parents accountable. I think that was the reason. I think that was the reason. But it is interesting to hear from Davis and I wonder if there's any other feedback from anyone that has done this and had a review period and then the parents aren't giving any feedback anyway. Then maybe this isn't something that would be valuable and it might be more of a hindrance. I just know that it's harder to remove than to put books in. And so are we, are the librarians already looking at Utah law before they add the books just to make sure that they do adhere to, we're not adding anything that doesn't adhere to the bright line. Yeah, I guess that's a great question. And I think it was just, you know, in my feedback from that I got from these folks and I, you know, I defer to them. They're the experts, but it was the 30 day part was the part that they were the most frustrated with because they just felt like it really takes away from their role as librarians and the trust that, that we can, you know, it's like, ask, it feels sort of like asking a science teacher to ask parents before they, you know, buy a cool new gadget that shows students how atoms are made or I don't know, something like that. Right? Like, it's just like, you should trust me, I know. And then also, because we have so many other things in place that, that are transparent about our, our books that are in the library and things like that, it feels like the 30 day was going to make a big, it was going to add a huge hindrance to our librarians ability to just be effective and efficiently. Oh, other, some other points that I want to make, sorry, just let me finish. Yeah. I mean, it's just like, oh, my gosh, I didn't realize I need this for my curriculum, can you order the, these books for me? And then they rarely give them enough 30 days to get those books in. And then the other thing they said is sometimes students come in and they're in the middle of a research paper and they need a certain book about like the seven years war or something. And they're like, I need this for my US history class. And they have to order the book in and the papers usually do like in two weeks. And so they're like, it's not enough time. And that 30 days is almost half of a term. And so it just would hinder that. And then the last point that they made was that 30 days also, sometimes when they have students that come in and they get really excited and they can see their excitement and passion for reading and they start reading, you know, something about space. And they're like, this is so cool. And all of these things about space. Can you order me some more books? And they would hate to say, I would love to order you some more books about space, but I'm going to have to wait 30 days. And they were worried that the enthusiasm that that student has for that they've gained from reading could be delayed and then stopped. And they're like, oh, I forgot about that. I cared about space. So those are kind of the points that they brought up, but I thought were really valid. Okay. Could I ask a clarifying question too? Yes. It's my understanding that with the sensitive material laws that code also states that librarians have to review the materials before they put them in the library anyway. Before they add new books. Did that go through or was that just proposed legislation that didn't go through? Well, learning materials, learning materials include reading materials and include, you know, all those. But they, okay. So they, but they initially like review and select the library materials and that's. Ask the question one more time. Yeah. Um, well, I guess what, I think what you're trying to say too, is that like, so, um, I learned a few years ago, there's this librarian that I met that was, um, in an, is, is in LA and in our state. And she was saying, I read every single book before I put it on my shelf. I read every single book. And so there, the librarians are, are, are trained to make sure that the content is appropriate. They're reading every book. They're approving. They know every book on their shelf cover to cover. Okay. So let's, oh, go ahead. Okay. Well, I just, I, it was my understanding that that was something that was passed a few years ago that librarians did need to review every book that comes on the shelf themselves. Oh, I get what you're saying. Go, go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Is that the case? Davina has an answer for you. Davina South, library media specialist, teaching learning. Um, so first of all, there is not a encode anything that requires the librarian to read every title before they put it into the library. What I will say is that, um, I personally have spent hours and hours of training on selection criteria and how to choose books that align with law across the entire state, like down to St. George, Logan, East, all over. So they get that from me, but they also, if they have, um, for example, SEDC has a really great, uh, coordinator there who gives training on selection criteria and how to choose books that align with law and also are interesting for students and align with curriculum and so on. And so, uh, I do think that they have a lot of training there in order to make sure they're making, there's a lot of training and a lot of tools out there that they use to make good selections. Um, just kind of as a side note, um, the, the titles that have been removed statewide, the average publication date of those titles is 2003, I believe. So I don't think we're having as much of an issue with books being put into the library as we are still going through collections and maybe removing books that are a sensitive materials violation. So my opinion from the library perspective is that, um, you know, we're, the, the training is there. They're experts. They know how to use the tools to purchase books. Um, and then we're still, you know, we have challenges that are coming in for existing collections that have been in the collection for years and years and years. And that's where we're seeing the sensitive materials showing up. That could have been a different librarian. Yeah. Exactly. 25 years ago, there was a different person that chose them when the laws were in place. It's easy to find some of those books now. It's not, whereas, you know, I mean, there's resources out there. You can quickly identify which books are going to violate the Bright Line law. It's not, it's not hard to do that. That maybe five years ago it was, but it's pretty easy. I, can you speak to, there's a couple of things I have questions on. So for me, I'm trying to look up at the front, the preventative end, right? This may not be exactly the right mechanism. I don't know for sure. I have just a couple of questions. One, can you talk, tell us, give us a broader idea of when they order library books? Maybe because we've heard this, you get in these book bundles, it's too much to read, so they're just putting them on the shelf. I don't know, I don't think that's necessarily the case, but it could be. Do you know what I mean? Where they're just getting a bundle of books from someone and then they're just putting them on the shelf, not really considering, you know, content for kids and stuff. But I, what is the process? Do you order in the spring? They come six months later. Do you, do you, do you know what I mean? And then the other question that's related to this, and this has to do with, you know, someone coming in and saying, I need, you know, seven books for this group. And my, what are the, do they have the resources to just order books when people come in? I, I'm just wondering, what does that look like on the ground, right? Because that will impact, you know, some of those decisions, so. Yeah, you bet. So, when I was in a library and then as a district supervisor in Granite School District for libraries, I would purchase every two weeks at a minimum, just because new releases, kids want those in their hands, they're excited about them, they're looking forward to them. I have tools that I would use to select those materials based on age appropriateness. I had a form in my library where students could say, I want this book, can you order this for me? And it would go on, I would review it, make sure it was appropriate for my school community. Sometimes I did actually say no to kids that, sorry, this book is a high school book. I was a junior high librarian, I can't order this book. And then I, the books would come in and I would review them in hand quickly to make sure that they were appropriate. I have actually, in multiple cases, I have moved a book that I purchased to the high school before I put it on the shelf. Another librarian I know recently told me about a book, she, it was a graphic, it wasn't a graphic novel, it was like a big non-fiction picture book with a lot of pictures in it and opened up the book, high school book, and she was like, I can't put this on my shelf, it's not appropriate for high school. So librarians, there's a process all the way along there, whether it's the first choice when they select that material, and then once it comes into the library, there's another precursory review. They'll read books that maybe they're not quite sure about, but they, like for a high school particularly, they cannot physically read every single book that goes into the library because they're purchasing thousands of titles. Do we need to give, and I guess that's, for them to order it and then realize that it's not, like I guess we live in a very modern day, right? You don't have to do that. You can put your book list and you can within 10 minutes get a pretty good analysis by using a variety, not just one tool, but a variety of tools, you know, what the content is. So is there something we should put in here about that, that they, almost like you can? I think it's still necessary to have eyes on a title. Oh, I'm not disagreeing with that, but I just think they're, that preventative, once again, that preventative piece is going to save resources, time, right? Yeah. All of that moving forward. Yeah. To curate a, you know. The, I, the example, that is a rare instance where you purchase a book and it ends up not being able to be used in your library at all. Yeah. But I guess my point was that like, they're very intentional and thoughtful about what they put into their libraries. They want to serve students and not just waste the, you know, a lot of libraries don't have large budgets. And so, like you mentioned, like it's, we don't want to be inefficient with the resources that we're given. And so, I think, I, I am concerned about a 30 day hold because I think kids want books and we want to keep them engaged. Teachers need books for their, you know, for the, I had an ancient civilization, a unit that a teacher was doing and she has the kids come choose books. That's something about the libraries. There's a lot of choice and kids choose what they're, when, when member Green was talking about like how in one area you can have a lot of different range of interest levels and, and, and things like that. The library is a place of choice. And so, yes, we follow the law. I always tell the librarians that when we do, when I do training is first we follow the law and then we build and curate a collection that meets all of the needs of our students. And our students range in background knowledge and developmental levels and all kinds of things. And so, um, that piece, that choice piece is really important because kids actually tend to self censor themselves when, with books that they don't, um, are maybe not resonating with. I, we do orientations at the beginning of library time at the beginning of the year that talks about what do you do if you pick up a book that doesn't resonate with you, that maybe is a, is contrary to your parents' values, your family values. You can put the book down. You can skip the page. You can bring the book back to your parents. You can bring the book back to the library. So I think really getting books in kids' hands as quickly as possible for what they're interested in, um, is really important too. Their literacy, their love of reading, their, their literacy journey. Um, we know kids aren't reading as much anymore. And I think, I really do believe that a 30 day pause is going to stunt that energy and passion that a kid might have a spark about a title or a, a topic that, um, is really important to their journey of, of reading. So my two cents. Okay. Sorry. I just, I'm trying to, I, yeah, go ahead. And then I'll. Um, so yeah, so this is like the 30, the 30 day pause, I think is coming from a place of wanting to get ahead of it and be, um, not reacting to this situation. I mean, we obviously find ourselves in, in a situation where we had to create a law to, to like stop the floodgates of things that, that, that was a trend. I listened to a thing on NPR news years ago and it talked about the, uh, the industry call for the increase of, of young adult novels. And, you know, what we see now, you know, just that prudent kind of pornographic stuff that just infiltrated to the, to the, to a younger age demographic. Now we won't get into that study, but there we are. And here we are. So, um, I have posed the question for, uh, since we started this, we were in the other little room way back when we were way back in that room and, uh, being a small business owner, there are so many steps to when product is received and put on your shelf. You have a, you have your, um, you have all your different departments that an order has to go through. So you have your product, your, your inventory, you see what's low, what needs to be brought in. You have, um, your sales rep that comes in and does the promotions cause, and you have windows of time where that promotion is set. So yeah, I totally, totally resonate with what's being said here cause that's, that's definitely the real world. And sometimes the deals are really good. Um, sometimes it's a product you've wanted and you move on it and you know, it was coming. So you waited. And then, um, at some point, and this is where parents are at, at some point, somebody decides to send certain books. And again, and I'm going to focus it just on this. I don't want to be, you know, accusatory in any way, but I'm just isolating on the fact that we've had an issue with certain kind of books coming into our libraries. So everybody is kind of at high alert and our, our parents have been now hesitant about, you know, their kids even entering the library. There's an industry that exists with publishers and they have a relationship with authors and they have, you know, that's their business. So they're going to onboard authors. They're going to onboard their inventory, which is novels. Um, and then you have the partnerships between those publishers and the distribution centers that then funnel into the, the schools. So that means that you, you have a, a warehouse, you have a place where those books are housed, you have, um, a purchase order that's curated. And then you have that hand selected and shipped from that warehouse. You have somebody that receives it, inventories it, puts their coding on it. So you know where it is. We do that with our product. Everything is mapped out with a little scanner. You know exactly where it goes. You receive it, you stock it. And it's the same with our books. So we've been trying to figure out who's to blame. If anybody were to be blamed, it's hard with books. Again, how do you read thousands of, of, you know, books every year? But we are asking the question, how is it that this, you know, can keep happening when? Which is why I voted to keep the, the clarification on we are, have an environment of minors. And so we have, that brings a whole different level of, um, duty and protection that we have to give for them. So, I, I've always said that relationship with authors and publishers to the education system. Which kind of, I guess, has gone unchecked in this way for, for as long as we've remembered. Because it hasn't been such an issue. And now we have to question, what is that relationship? And it sounds like that this situation, in the way that you've just described, it heavily weighs on the librarians. And, and that's really heavy. Now, if they are reacting to what the industry is giving them, and if their options have been narrowed down because that's what the industry is providing, then they're in a very tough position as well. So, and I don't know, you can, I'm, I'm talking, I'm probably rambling, but I want to, I want to expand this conversation a little bit. Because there, it's not just school librarians. There is an industry, and there is a business partnership that exists with publishers, authors, and school system. And so, how, how much do we know about what that relationship looks like? Are there contracts? Is there, you know, specific publishers, shipping departments, you know, housing facilities that those publishers send those authors books to that we pull from? Do you know? So let me make sure I understand your question. Yes. So you're asking what librarians know about, like, what are the contracts that maybe a school slash librarian has with authors, publishers, distributors? Where they get the inventory from. Where they get the inventory from. Okay. So, every, every, every school or district may be a little bit differently, but there's, it's a little bit different. There are a couple of distributors out there that they will purchase from. Amazon being probably, with our small districts and charter schools, they probably go there more often just because it's more convenient. It's more quick. The books will get there more quickly. Our other districts will use a variety of different, they don't work with publishers at all. It will only be a distributor who has a, a bunch of, all of the titles potentially. Um, when, what they do is they actually cover the titles for, they cover, when the materials come in, they're already pre-covered in library materials and barcoded and everything. So it saves the librarian time. So that's partly why they use those, um, organizations. So they don't necessarily have a contract with any of those organizations. I know there's a state contract out there with one, um, facilitator. Uh, but beyond that, like the, the librarians aren't, the schools are not required to use any specific, um, vendor for purchasing. And that's why they, they end up, like I would purchase from Amazon sometimes and I would purchase from another distributor sometimes. Um, but I had no relationship with publishers. None of us had any, have any relationships with publishers at all. So I can't speak to, um, to like what that might look like. Um, I do hear, um, I've heard mentioned historically this idea of these books, these bundles of books that come. Um, I never did that. None of the librarians in Granite School District ever did that for the, my conversations with, um, librarians. I don't, I'm not sure, um, you know, who might, who might be purchasing those bundles, um, that you're, that you all have been referencing. Um, but that's not something that I think is mainstream that comes and we get, we got these books that we didn't actually choose all of what came in the package. Um, generally we are choosing every single title that ends up in our schools. Um, and I'm a rambler too, so. Yeah. I, I think, I think you bring up a good point. That's, that's interesting information that, that's been added. I, I guess on the big picture I see this 30 day is like, I understand preemptively looking at ways to ensure that our, um, libraries are full of appropriate material. Um, but in practice, um, but in practice I think we take that we have the sensitive material rule and code. We have a policy that is thoughtful and has ways to check to make sure and ensure and ways to review any books, of course. Um, but that in practice it's not about, it, my, my argument about the 30 days is not about the, you know, the, the sense of materials or anything like that. I'm not trying to make that any easier. I'm just saying in practice functionally from process perspective, it just is a huge hindrance to our librarians. It's, it just is going to, um, cause a lot of problems. And honestly, I was thinking about the Davis school district piece. I was thinking this reminds me of why I like federalism because federalism is like, we're going to let some states try out some laws. Like, Ooh, let's see what happens when California passes that law, if it helps them or not. And then you go, Oh, that didn't work out. They lost a bunch of money. That was a stupid idea. California. And so then you can say, we're not doing that in Utah. And I sort of see Davis school district is trying out this waiting period is like a little test. And from what I gathered from all the Davis, um, librarians is they were like, this has been a huge pain. And no one has responded to any of those asks, asks for feedback. So it just feels like an unnecessary step, but with place, with tools in place to make sure that we are still following ourselves. We're still following our sense of material law. Okay. Vice Chair Wood has been waiting so patiently and I've been reminded twice. So I'm apologizing that she's on there and then we will come back to their comments. So go ahead, Vice Chair Wood. Oh, thank you. Just a couple of questions on the original prior to member rails amendment. You talked about initially review and that, that the librarians would be review and recommend as opposed to select. As this assuming then if someone, if, if an LEA took this policy whole and, and implemented it, would every book that's purchased have to go through the, the local governing board to be approved? I mean, would we be micromanaging at that level? There was a part, there is a part later that I, that I wanted to amend from member URLs that does not require it to go to the board for review. Okay. But, but, but this particular section where you're turning them that the librarians only into a review and recommend who then selects. So just based on. Yeah. Go ahead. I, I'm just thinking out loud too. Yeah. Because I didn't realize that. Thanks. Remember. Well, I. Because it, it seems like I, you could interpret materials under the direction of the local board as whatever local policy that they had or rulers or a policy that they have in place. But. Yeah. And I guess the question becomes who's re, who in essence is responsible? Is it only the librarian? So if there is materials that comes through, it's the librarian's responsibility. Is the local board responsible of library books? You know what I mean? I, not just books, but the instructional materials. So there, I mean, there's a broad question there. Right. And then that's where I'm all, I, I like, I like member rails amendment there that, that they review and select because I do think that is their job. That's what they're trained for. That's what they decided to make their life's passion to do that. But it there, it also says under the direction of the local board. So I think ultimately the local board becomes accountable. If they're hiring people who are putting things in, if they're doing things that are inappropriate, it is ultimately under the direction of the board. But I like that we are still giving librarians that opportunity to choose. I am wondering also, could we, um, I guess I would make an amendment to member rails and to leave in the make new acquisitions open for public review. Yeah, I would actually, I would recommend that too, if that's. How would that work in practice? I still, I just want to make sure. Does that just mean that the local boards could, could have a policy in there that is a five to 10 day like Davis or. Well, I wouldn't put a timeframe on there. It's just that, that the parents could or, or any community members could come in and, and see what new acquisitions were. Oh, okay. But I would leave out the 30 days. Okay. My, I think about my son, he, he was addicted to the, I survived in elementary school. And they were constantly having to go purchase the next one. There were eight in the series, I believe. And they were constantly going and buying him the next one. And they were getting them to read. And I would hate to think like you just commented the, you know, well, we'll get to the next one in 30 days, because in 30 days in the third grader, he's off, he's gone. And so, and, and my feedback, just to, to finish up this conversation is, I just saw the, the 30 days as our, our way to get ahead of, of the trend of, of continuing to find sexually explicit material within library books in the school. So our goal is, is to have that relationship with vendors that they, they, vendors themselves are also aware of what is required. And again, that's why I was asking, what is that relationship? I don't know if it's a contract. I don't know if it's a list. I don't know if it's a training, but they need to understand that there is an expectation here and, and we are aware and, and there, there has to be. And I feel bad because it, in the way it's been explained, it seems like librarians are really kind of in the hot seat right now. And if they are professionals, we would hope that they would be aware of the environments that they are sitting in, that it is a, it is an environment of minors. And that takes a huge responsibility to curate quality materials. I also, now I'm going to say, I also struggle with the 30 days because like Member Wood just said, I had a student that really loved a certain series and she wanted the next book. That book was there, I think by like the end of the week or something. And she was like over the moon and the librarian was like the hero and we were all happy. And she read the book in two days and she was now waiting on the author to get the third book, you know? So that's a beautiful moment too, so I think. Yeah, I was going to say, I think I'd rather put a hold on the 30 days for now. I also received some additional feedback over the last couple of days on some different organizations that do different, go in and take books to, you know, bring authors in. And they said, what does that look like for us? And I was like, I'm not sure, right? So this is that effort to try to be preventative up front. It's not try to be more cumbersome. So if it does create a cumbersomeness, then it's probably not the right fit. And that's why we have a committee meeting, right? And that's why we have drafts so that, and then we have a 30 day before we go to the full board so we can say, well, maybe we do need the five or 10. Maybe it was working and just it wasn't working for certain people. I don't know. So at this point, I do feel comfortable with where we're at on this amendment, but we can, if we want to move that forward. I don't know, do we have any other comments online before we make this motion? And then we are going to take a five minute break. Yeah, I'm okay with removing the 30 days. I like that. I'm just looking at what some other states have done. And Texas requires that vendors who sell to school libraries actually evaluate all materials and issue a rating of sexually explicit or sexually relevant. And if it's challenged and found that they rated it incorrectly, they send it back and require them to relook at it or face being barred from selling to Texas libraries. And so I wonder if we look at doing something like that instead of making more work on the librarians. That would be a legislative request, right? You're kind of leaning into a legislative request, which we can make as the board during the summer going into next year. So that we're holding those that are providing the materials more accountable to what they're giving us for our students. And then, yeah, and then some of the other states have their districts, like the school libraries just have to have an online portal so that parents can get on and look at the books that are in their school libraries. And I, you know, maybe some of our schools do that, but we don't mandate that currently, right? No, that is in law. Oh, it is in law. Okay, so they are supposed to have an online search. They do have that. Okay. All right. All right. So we're going to go ahead with this motion. Then we are going to take a five-minute break for all of this body here to go stretch their legs and get a drink. So, okay, so the motion before the committee is that -- So you have the Board Member Wood amendment to the motion first to leave in the words. Okay. Thank you for reminding me of that. Okay. So we're going to go ahead with an amendment to the amendment. And that would be to -- where am I looking? Down at the bottom. Okay. It would be to leave in and making new acquisitions open for public review. Do we need to -- do we need to put a timeframe on that? Anybody feeling like it's within a year or something or just new acquisitions? Maybe. I think we just leave it and then we can, in 30 days, if we feel like it, for the full board, if there's something there. You want to do the 30 days? No, no, no. I'm saying we don't have -- remember. Okay. So the amendment to the amendment is adding back in and making new acquisitions open for public review. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. That passed unanimously. And then we're going to go back up to the -- so the modification here would be that the library -- let's see, what are we doing? This is as amended now. Okay. So as amended, the library professional or designated LEA name specialist trained on this policy will initially review, and then striking recommend, review and select all library materials under the direction of the local board, including gifts, donations consistent with this policy, using the following criteria. Create a collection that adheres to Utah law, seek recommendations and work collaboratively with parents, patrons, others in the school community during the selection process, and making new acquisitions open for public review, and then creating a collection that reflects diversity of ideas. Yeah. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. passes unanimously. And we are going to take a five-minute break. So everybody go stretch. Go get a drink. Go run around the building real quick. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Go get a drink. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, we'll go ahead with that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Chuck Foster. Thank you. Thank you. And I can read that. Any additional discussion. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.