[00:00:00] Okay, thank you. This is Standards and Assessment Committee meeting, and we are so grateful you
[00:00:06] are all here today. My name is Jenny Earle, and I represent Northern Utah, which is District
[00:00:11] 1, so it's the whole top of the state. And we'll go ahead and let each of the board members
[00:00:16] introduce themselves. We'll do the ones here in the committee first, and then we'll do
[00:00:20] online in just a moment. So go ahead. Good morning. My name is Joanne Brinton,
[00:00:25] and I represent Southern Utah.
[00:00:28] The very bottom of Utah, I should say.
[00:00:33] Good morning.
[00:00:34] My name is Leanne Wood.
[00:00:35] I represent District 4.
[00:00:37] That's South Davis County and North Salt Lake.
[00:00:39] Okay.
[00:00:40] And then online we have Board Member Green.
[00:00:43] Do you want to introduce?
[00:00:45] Yes, Emily Green.
[00:00:47] I represent District 14.
[00:00:49] Okay.
[00:00:50] And Board Member Real.
[00:00:52] Good morning.
[00:00:53] This is Sarah Real representing District 5.
[00:00:56] And I realize that we literally go from the top to the bottom of the state on this committee.
[00:01:01] I'm in Southern County.
[00:01:04] We're one of the few that's really blessed to do that.
[00:01:08] So, okay.
[00:01:09] We have, yeah, there is a bit of an echo going on.
[00:01:13] We're trying to figure that out, but we're going to.
[00:01:17] Okay.
[00:01:19] Let's start.
[00:01:20] We do have someone for public comment, or at least I have that indicated here.
[00:01:25] Edson Barton.
[00:01:28] And is he online?
[00:01:30] Do we have a person online, or is he in person?
[00:01:32] Stacey McGinnis is online.
[00:01:34] Yeah, Stacey.
[00:01:35] Yeah.
[00:01:36] And she is online.
[00:01:40] Okay.
[00:01:42] Okay.
[00:01:42] Who do we have then?
[00:01:43] I'm sorry, one more time.
[00:01:44] Stacey McGinnis.
[00:01:45] Stacey McGinnis.
[00:01:47] do you have are you online I am I'm right here okay very good go ahead Stacy
[00:01:55] hi we'll have about two minutes we'll we'll let you know when it gets close
[00:02:00] she starts can I just say Stacy was one of she taught my kids and is like one of
[00:02:07] the best teachers I know she teaches at Crimson View Elementary and she lights
[00:02:12] up the room in a class and just inspires students and they love her and fight to
[00:02:18] get in her class so I'm excited to hear what she has to say today well I'm
[00:02:23] excited to try to keep this to two minutes because and I do talk fast yes
[00:02:29] go ahead today I am here asking for you to pay attention to referencing line 133
[00:02:36] of the grade level instructional time in classrooms I support what the bill is
[00:02:41] trying to do but i don't believe that kids should be on screens all day but i am respectfully asking
[00:02:46] that the board recognize that kindergarten and third grade are very different levels in their
[00:02:51] learning a nine-year-old third nine-year-old third grader and a five-year-old kindergartner
[00:02:55] are in very different places in their learning and lumping them together under this rule
[00:02:59] does not fit the ability or reality of what a third grader is required to do third grader
[00:03:05] teachers do not waste time we cannot afford to third grade is the bridge between primary grades
[00:03:11] in intermediate grades, the rigor is high, the demands are high, and we actually tell the kids,
[00:03:18] hey, now you're officially a big kid, and you're going to be using your computers a little bit more.
[00:03:23] They're required, students are required to not only write a full paragraph essay, but they're
[00:03:27] also, full paragraph, but they're also required to write a five paragraph essay. They're also
[00:03:33] required to do the Utah Rise, Acadian's Maze, and they're also required to do all of our
[00:03:39] into reading district tests on their computers. These aren't optional. They're mandatory. If they
[00:03:45] don't do well and they're not confident on their computer, they won't do well. Compared to my
[00:03:49] grandson, who is in kindergarten, and he mainly spends maybe 15 to 30 minutes a week trying to
[00:03:57] get his Alexia done on a computer. In my class, technology is purposeful and is limited. My
[00:04:03] students may spend anywhere from 20 to 30 minutes on Chromebooks, practicing math facts, short word,
[00:04:08] doing vocabulary things, doing tests from Scholastic News, and their favorite thing of the
[00:04:15] year is to write in their Google Docs. What I mean by that is they have to write a five-paragraph
[00:04:20] essay, usually four to five times before they even get to that point. And if the kids don't get to
[00:04:25] that point, it is just straight, all handwritten. That is the cherry on top for them. I am not into
[00:04:32] overusing technology, nor do I think any teacher in this state is a third grade teacher. And I know
[00:04:39] some parent groups are really concerned about this, and I understand that, but I would like
[00:04:43] the board to know that in my class and every third grade classroom I've ever been in, I have not seen
[00:04:48] this happening at all. I am simply asking you to give third grade their own set of rules, something
[00:04:54] between K through two restrictions and grades four through six framework. They deserve rules that
[00:05:00] reflect who they are and actually what they are required and mandated to do by the state.
[00:05:05] I would also invite any of the board members, I've talked to Joanne about this, about coming
[00:05:11] into any of the third grade classrooms, including my own, to see what we really are doing in
[00:05:15] there and how we're using technology.
[00:05:17] I know there's concerns.
[00:05:18] I know there's maybe abuse somewhere else, but I have never seen it.
[00:05:22] I come to you today to ask as not someone who's frustrated, but as someone who loves
[00:05:27] their jobs, loves their students, and wants to get this right alongside you. My door is always truly
[00:05:33] open, and I don't know of any teacher that doesn't have their door open to anyone that wants to come
[00:05:38] in to see what they're doing, especially in third grade. I invite parents. I invite the, well, the
[00:05:43] students, of course, are invited, and the board to understand that we need to find out what third
[00:05:47] grade really looks like as you go forth applying these rules to make sure that students aren't,
[00:05:54] We want them to leave confident and successful.
[00:05:56] We don't want them to feel like
[00:05:57] that they're not really good on a computer
[00:05:59] and because they're so limited in using it.
[00:06:02] And again, not to compare them to kindergarten or first,
[00:06:05] I used to teach second grade.
[00:06:07] These are totally different beasts
[00:06:08] when it comes to third grade.
[00:06:09] Third grade, we have a lot on the line.
[00:06:12] We have a lot more rigorous assessments that we have to do.
[00:06:15] And to have our students not be able
[00:06:18] to be really good on the computer
[00:06:19] in a purposeful and limited way is really sad.
[00:06:24] and I think it deteriorates from us as teachers
[00:06:26] and as what the kids can do in third grade.
[00:06:29] Thank you.
[00:06:30] Okay, thank you, Stacey.
[00:06:32] Appreciate your comments.
[00:06:34] Okay, we are going to go to our next agenda item.
[00:06:38] The first item we have today is the standards review process.
[00:06:44] And so, do you know what, is it listed different in the?
[00:06:48] It is, it says physical education.
[00:06:51] Yes.
[00:06:51] no no she you know what oh this is me yeah it may it may be that's okay we'll go off that we've got
[00:07:03] our we've got our thing pulled up here yes I was just like wait a minute that was not the right
[00:07:09] okay I'll put it right here all right um so our first item is an information item it's the p12
[00:07:18] physical education standards revision update and so who's going to be
[00:07:23] presenting that today Oh Terry's online okay Terry we'll turn the time over to
[00:07:31] you greetings everyone this is Terry Davis from the Utah State Board of
[00:07:38] Education I am the physical education specialist over PE and overseeing the PE
[00:07:46] standards process for the organization so we are excited because we've had
[00:07:53] quite a few great meetings thoughtful meetings in in the standards writing
[00:08:00] team meetings we have a variety of people representing various different
[00:08:08] areas from all over the state but also various different grade levels and they
[00:08:15] are using their expertise to be able to write all of the new standards that they
[00:08:23] would like to bring to you. Currently we are working on a draft and hopefully the
[00:08:31] draft will come to you. We're shooting for the August board meeting to be able
[00:08:36] to submit that draft to have it ready. We're working with the aquatics writing team and trying
[00:08:47] to catch them up so we can submit the standards, the PE standards, as a full package for your review.
[00:08:57] And so right now we have a draft that we are just getting ready to complete. We wanted to make sure
[00:09:06] that we had it written with fidelity
[00:09:09] and that we're making sure that we cover all of the things.
[00:09:13] So this next week, we'll be reviewing as a review writing team.
[00:09:19] The team will be reviewing the current draft as it's written,
[00:09:25] making some minor adjustments,
[00:09:27] and then we will look forward to submitting that for the August meeting.
[00:09:34] So do you have any questions?
[00:09:36] yeah i think so yes i i do i am curious because i've seen a lot online about the presidential
[00:09:43] fitness awards coming back and having some more rigor and physical fitness education
[00:09:49] are we going to incorporate any of that in rpe standards so that kids
[00:09:53] can be made aware of the presidential fitness awards and strive for some of those
[00:10:00] certificates as well that's a question that everyone across the state has been asking me
[00:10:08] could we just get ahead and do that i'll just put in a request
[00:10:11] so we're not um necessarily naming out the presidential fitness test in the standards
[00:10:20] but um you will find that pe teachers will find in the standards that there are um elements
[00:10:28] of that test woven throughout the standards and there's even more things in the standards so we're
[00:10:35] excited about the presidential fitness test coming and the gold medal schools program coming
[00:10:43] but also we're very excited about the standards because the standards will offer more depth and
[00:10:51] breadth in what we're teaching in physical education okay thank you sure okay any other
[00:11:01] anybody online have comments any board members before we move on okay well we're excited to see
[00:11:08] those it'll be here just in time to start school and keep picking up I think we'll end up with a
[00:11:14] whole series of standards all at once it feels like right so yes we have we love that we
[00:11:20] what is really cool is that we have members we have representation from higher ed all the way
[00:11:30] down to preschool that are writing the standards and they're adding their expertise and research
[00:11:36] and backing behind all of the standards that are being written and so we will have the rationale
[00:11:42] also to go with the standards
[00:11:45] if you have any questions
[00:11:47] feel free to ask
[00:11:50] because we have our wonderful higher ed people
[00:11:54] that are adding to the reasoning
[00:11:58] of why we're doing what we're doing
[00:12:02] so I'm excited to get that draft to you
[00:12:05] I think it'll be great for everyone to be able to see it
[00:12:09] And to know that when we are talking physical education, we're not just talking exercise.
[00:12:15] We are talking about learning physical education and learning physical activity.
[00:12:22] And so this is the plug that I want to say is that PE is not just having students go
[00:12:31] out and exercise.
[00:12:32] We want students to learn why exercise is important.
[00:12:36] And so this is the part of the education part of PE is PE teachers across the state want to know what students are learning and they want to make sure that students are learning about wellness and that they will be able to go out into the world and be able to keep themselves healthy and well throughout their lifetime and not just have it be an exercise class that only lasts an hour.
[00:13:05] very good thank you okay i don't see any other comments or uh hands so thank you for terry thank
[00:13:13] you for the update on that and we look forward to reading those in the in the well summer whenever
[00:13:18] those get to us okay yep all right thank you yes you're welcome all right our next item is r277334
[00:13:28] classroom technology this is a new this is a new rule for us and sorry I don't
[00:13:35] have who will be who will be presenting that oh yeah Jennifer was worth I am the
[00:13:43] policy advisor so this is a new rule that is our compliance with the balance
[00:13:49] Act so House Bill 273 and I should let you know that we are currently working
[00:13:54] on the model policy that is required by this law.
[00:13:57] So you'll see reference to the board's model policy.
[00:14:00] We do not currently have that policy for you to view.
[00:14:03] However, it is in the works, and I know that Dr. Hunt is on top of that,
[00:14:08] and it should be to this committee hopefully by August or September.
[00:14:11] So basically everything in there is new.
[00:14:15] So if there's any questions as we go along, let me know the definition.
[00:14:19] So it mandates that our LEAs need to have their model policies in place by July of 2027.
[00:14:26] Whether they choose to adopt our policy or create their own, there are instructions for how they need to go about doing that.
[00:14:32] But it does need to be in place by July of 2027.
[00:14:35] There are also requirements for their AI sandbox courses if they choose to do that.
[00:14:40] The technology requirements per grade, as we heard today, in public comment.
[00:14:46] And, yeah, if anyone has any questions, we do have Matt Winters here.
[00:14:50] We actually have a lot of specialists here who can answer all of the questions that have
[00:14:53] been working on this new rule.
[00:14:55] So I do have a few amendments that need to be made based on feedback that we received
[00:15:00] LEA in-house counsel and some superintendents just to clarify some things in the rule but other than
[00:15:04] that we're ready for questions okay um go who would like to go first yeah my question yes go ahead
[00:15:12] yeah so i have had some feedback on the grade level instructional and technology requirements
[00:15:18] section and um wondering if that specific section instead of just laying out everything that's in
[00:15:26] the law that section could be put in the policy because they had heard and I've
[00:15:33] been trying to get into la.utah.gov and it seems to be down for the last two
[00:15:37] days to verify but they had heard that as long as they had a policy that they
[00:15:44] could change some of those requirements that they could adapt some of those
[00:15:50] requirements to the to the local policy and I and I didn't I wanted to read the
[00:15:54] rule or like a weed law and which yeah i printed them off so is there a specific one that you
[00:16:00] wanted to i think it's pretty much taken from the law it is yeah so 273 does it does dictate that
[00:16:06] lea shall and then tells them exactly what they don't have this because that's one of the selling
[00:16:11] points of that law was that there's requiring balance but that leas will be able to establish
[00:16:18] some of that balance according to the the way they use technology and you're saying that was
[00:16:23] not granted in the end. Not my reading of it, but we do have AG Goff with us and we also have Dr. Hunt.
[00:16:28] Well and I apologize for not being able to do some of the deep dive myself.
[00:16:35] Thank you, Chair. Yes, go ahead and introduce yourself. Amy Hunt, Assistant Superintendent.
[00:16:40] One of the things that's interesting about this rule is that while there are a lot of shells,
[00:16:44] there are also some places within the the guidelines that allow us to be able to talk
[00:16:51] about for example what happens third grade so if you were to look at the rule
[00:16:55] and look at line 183 we are required to have level frameworks that are similar
[00:17:02] to the bill but it does provide us an opportunity to be able in our model
[00:17:08] policy to provide additional instruction and our model policy right now is
[00:17:13] focusing on understanding both the purpose and what's in the law but then a
[00:17:17] description of best practices and how schools might be able to work within the
[00:17:23] guidelines that well not guidelines but within this specific rules themselves so
[00:17:28] I think it's 133 is it 133 I'm not 183 it's 183 in the bill not okay in the
[00:17:37] sorry that's what I wondered if we could talk to the bill sponsor and it
[00:17:41] because I've heard not just from some third grade teachers but also district
[00:17:46] level specialists and superintendents that that this third grade is a really tricky year because
[00:17:53] they are mandated to test on their Chromebooks and we need to be preparing them for that and as
[00:17:59] Mrs. McGinnis mentioned they're writing they're learning to type an essay a five paragraph essay
[00:18:04] so to just say zero tech that's not the balance that I think is needed for third grade I understand
[00:18:12] maybe K through two should be handled differently but third grade is this
[00:18:16] bridge you're going into the older level grades you have that like that's why
[00:18:20] when she said that line 139 does say preparation for or administration of
[00:18:25] standards assessment so it does allow for that so we need to focus on that
[00:18:30] because the message going to the districts when they're looking at 133 is
[00:18:33] absolutely no tech we can't you can't use it yeah so that's one of the things
[00:18:38] that we are trying to do with the model policy is more than just explain what
[00:18:44] the requirements are we're trying to help provide some best practices and be
[00:18:49] able to explain how these things can be best utilized in in a school setting so
[00:18:55] it'll look a little different than a typical model policy because it's going
[00:18:59] to give a lot more guidance around what the practice actually looks like okay
[00:19:03] I think it does beg the question that is there value in handwriting versus
[00:19:10] typing there's this definitely you know so I I mean I think there is something
[00:19:15] to be thought of there maybe that I know it should be handwritten but then the
[00:19:19] final draft could be typed in I know but I mean I know we definitely have seen
[00:19:23] research that handwriting is so important to make those brain
[00:19:27] connections and brain development much more so than typing on a computer so I
[00:19:31] fully support the balance and having our students especially in the younger
[00:19:36] grades with pen pencils and paper in hand and books thank you for sharing
[00:19:41] that because it gives us an opportunity really to make sure that we outline
[00:19:44] those things in the model policy okay chair yes I'm sorry I just wanted to
[00:19:50] clarify with member wood so in terms of what is included in the rule that is what
[00:19:55] will need to be included in the policy so the framework for kindergarten 3/3 does have to
[00:20:00] meet that code does that make sense but other than that just want to make sure that answer was okay
[00:20:07] amy you might want to stay right there i just don't move yet we'll tell you when you can be
[00:20:13] excused here so we got probably just a few questions are there other questions that um
[00:20:20] board members have well i think i i was explaining to one of the teachers there were some questions
[00:20:26] about the prohibit required one-to-one devices which can sound like you can't have one-to-one
[00:20:33] devices but that's not really what it says it's that they can't mandate one-to-one devices right
[00:20:40] was i explaining that correctly to them chair may i respond chair yes okay so one-to-one device
[00:20:48] typically refers to a student taking a device home or having a device specifically assigned to
[00:20:55] them that no other student is using. So the idea is that one-to-one devices would not be appropriate
[00:21:01] if you were asking younger students not to be able to use them. That does not prohibit a student from
[00:21:07] using a device at school, right, and especially if under the way it's explained in the law,
[00:21:13] if it's instructionally led. Okay, and then in the older grade technology, like fourth and fifth
[00:21:20] graders that I did have a question about it also says that about prohibiting the
[00:21:26] the one-to-one devices and that they cannot do any homework requiring
[00:21:31] internet access but in some of those fifth grade sixth grade classes they're
[00:21:36] learning to make PowerPoints so is that now off the table you can't learn to make
[00:21:41] a PowerPoint you have to go back to poster board no I think that what it
[00:21:45] means is that where you make the PowerPoint matters right so we shouldn't
[00:21:49] requiring people to take home a computer and do that work at home that it would be at school
[00:21:56] under the direction of an instructional leader who's helping make sure that people are learning
[00:22:02] the appropriate skills okay which is hard it is hard yeah i i think i think there's at least i've
[00:22:12] i'm seeing this trend nationally but also in the state of utah just this idea that we've
[00:22:16] maybe oversaturated with technology and how to really make it so that it focuses on what the
[00:22:21] primary learning objectives are instead of just a filler so to speak so that's what i feel like
[00:22:28] i have just a couple of questions um so on line one or two for 214 and i just when i went through
[00:22:37] these so it says an lea shall provide training to educators and staff regarding balanced
[00:22:42] instructional technology use requirements and on 214 it says instructional technology expectations
[00:22:47] and limitations are we putting those in our model policy yes we're putting them in the model policy
[00:22:53] and we are also going to create an example training oh okay that could be utilized if a
[00:22:58] district adopts our policy okay and we we have a year where this is kind of like a trial year right
[00:23:05] where people can start into this and a year for full application okay and then on just down a
[00:23:10] further and I you're probably going to say the same thing I just wrote who by
[00:23:13] the side of this age-appropriate instructional technology practices are
[00:23:17] we developing those staff are developing that or is that part of that model
[00:23:21] policy yes one question that we're still navigating that we have navigated on
[00:23:27] this committee before is this notion of what's age-appropriate so we are you
[00:23:32] know moving through that trying to determine what does that look like and
[00:23:36] how do we put it in a model policy in a way that honors that every student is
[00:23:40] different and may not necessarily fit into an age-appropriate band but but that
[00:23:45] is the work that we are we're focused on right now okay and I had possible
[00:23:53] amendments let me look those up here and then we had a couple of amendments and
[00:23:57] then we'll continue to take some questions and such so line 71 let me get
[00:24:02] to 71 here we have so online maybe I answered my own question never mind there
[00:24:14] you go glad I liked it okay line 126 I have who does this go to so let me get
[00:24:22] to lane 126 and I think it's it's staffing so in the LEA sends there they
[00:24:30] have to send an LEA shall submit to the superintendent the LEA's finalized
[00:24:35] policy and a statement confirming the LEA held a public meeting required by in
[00:24:40] subsection 2 so this is that confirmation you did this who is our who
[00:24:45] does that go to here who's going to hold that so we've discussed this a bit with
[00:24:50] our policy team and it would be probably most appropriate to put it in the yearly
[00:24:54] assurances of a school district or at least so they wouldn't say is that say they send
[00:25:00] it to us well they would send it to us okay require that as well this isn't
[00:25:04] something that they're going to adjust every single year so we're going to need
[00:25:07] that initial assurance it would come into you're saying it would come as
[00:25:11] evidence that they're doing it okay it's just not yes or no it's yes and here it
[00:25:15] is yes ah okay okay that makes sense one more
[00:25:21] let's see 236 access to educational professions professionals with expertise
[00:25:32] okay who is this so let's see we're under an LEA may provide accommodations
[00:25:38] or supports including and then on 236 access to educational professionals with
[00:25:44] expertise in technology related learning difficulties at the and I'm assuming
[00:25:48] this is in the within the local lea right yeah who do you who are we envisioning this is going to be
[00:25:54] i mean maybe you don't know maybe they just are going to have to assign someone but who might be
[00:25:58] different in each school district or each lea depending on their resources and the level of
[00:26:03] expertise they have but many of our special education teachers and you know leaders do have
[00:26:10] some understanding of technology related learning difficulties or have access to an understanding
[00:26:16] where to get the support or help they need okay so they probably just need to designate someone as
[00:26:21] our go-to person yes and the model policy we're writing we have members of our special education
[00:26:27] team here at usbe that are helping us navigate this as well okay very good all right did you
[00:26:33] have some amendments you needed us to make yes so the first one is on line 252 as we were drafting
[00:26:41] we were looking at well long story short through as a placeholder and if we go to
[00:26:46] the motions doc we do have the affected code so it is 53g 7228 and then also
[00:26:53] what was the one 14 whatever the one is there but we need to add these two and
[00:26:56] remove the word through okay I do you want to make that motion and then I'll
[00:27:02] just read it out I will make the motion to amend that the word through be
[00:27:08] stricken from line 252 and be replaced with 53D-7-229. Can't see. 53,53G-7-1402 and that's it.
[00:27:25] The other two are listed there. Okay is there any discussion to this motion or to this amendment?
[00:27:33] Are we seeing anyone online? No? Okay. All right. The motion is that we will strike the word on
[00:27:42] line 252, strike the word through, and replace it with 53G-7-229, 53G-7-1402,
[00:27:55] comma and all those in favor aye aye aye aye aye okay that passes unanimously and we have another
[00:28:04] recommended motion that came from staff do you want to move that one too um i motion to amend
[00:28:11] section six subsection four by adding a new subsection e that reads refrain from using
[00:28:19] generative artificial intelligence to independently grade to independently graded student work or
[00:28:33] grade independent yeah that doesn't read what independently grade yeah so essentially what
[00:28:40] we had in the rule is it and what is in code is it educators are not allowed to use generative AI
[00:28:45] independently grade a student's work okay yeah so we just need to make a little bit more clear okay
[00:28:52] okay sorry that wasn't reading sounding right any discussion to this motion
[00:29:00] i'm not seeing any hands okay um so the motion before the committee is that we amend
[00:29:07] section six subsection four by adding a new subsection e that reads refrain from using
[00:29:15] generative artificial intelligence to independently grade student work all those in favor aye aye
[00:29:23] aye okay that passes unanimously and i do we have any other recommended i had just had somebody send
[00:29:35] me a chart regarding um the digital citizenship but i'm not sure if this would be the place
[00:29:42] And it was grading the different news--
[00:29:47] I'm not sure how to--
[00:29:49] that was concerning, the way that it
[00:29:51] was placing different news outlets in either neutral,
[00:29:55] leaning left, leaning right, right, left.
[00:29:57] But it seemed very biased in the way it was presented.
[00:30:00] it and i wondered where would be the appropriate place to share that chart so that um we could look
[00:30:07] at that do do we approve like what's in the digital literacy or citizenship classes like
[00:30:17] is it coming out the next okay so i'll share that late and bring that back okay yeah without
[00:30:23] and i wondered if that's curriculum or if that's a resource that we provide so let's just be yeah
[00:30:29] okay okay um i have
[00:30:37] sorry i just had
[00:30:40] when it comes to the ai portion of this we've already pretty much built out a framework already
[00:30:46] are we anticipating a lot of work on that or maybe just structuring a little different it seems like
[00:30:53] we've been in that space for a bit that's one of the nice things is because we've been in that space
[00:30:57] we'll be able to create and and provide guidance around ai that we've already provided and that
[00:31:04] will now be part of that model policy so thanks to the work of matt and our team yeah a lot of
[00:31:09] that work's already done yeah as i read through this i thought we've got that already so yeah
[00:31:13] yeah okay all right i think i'm looking for a motion for this document
[00:31:21] Okay. I will recommend that the committee approve R277-334 Classroom Technology Draft 1
[00:31:29] as amended on first reading and forward to the board for approval on second and final reading.
[00:31:34] Okay. Any discussion? Oh, go ahead.
[00:31:36] I do. I had one thing that I had wanted to bring up.
[00:31:40] Yeah.
[00:31:40] And it's in regards to the lower part of this rule where it talks about the AI.
[00:31:49] Do you have a line?
[00:31:51] that you want to yeah let me bring it up real quick i'm so sorry i it really just goes to
[00:31:58] you know the the news firestorm that's come with the ai contract that we just did with gemini
[00:32:04] have we have we put this draft up against what we just signed with gemini um and have we met the
[00:32:14] the criteria there even with that contract and how does that apply
[00:32:18] to what we've what we've written here about the relationship with ai in the school setting
[00:32:24] i'm just thinking it's probably the first uh quality check that we can butt it up against
[00:32:31] i i don't know does anybody have that information or a response yeah so anything that that we do
[00:32:39] when we're looking at policies right or we're looking at agreements with others we are making
[00:32:45] sure that we're both acknowledging the ai policies we've put in place and the privacy agreements we've
[00:32:52] put in place so nothing would have been part of an agreement if it had not been considered
[00:32:57] in alignment with those policies and agreements so when teachers move forward you know if if they
[00:33:08] choose to utilize that ai use in their classrooms will they have been trained on on this rule like
[00:33:18] what is what does it look like on the teacher's side of understanding you know the ethics of ai
[00:33:23] and what we have in policy and and rule what does that conversation look like on the ground
[00:33:29] yes go ahead so one of the things that i think that we consider is that whether or not
[00:33:35] an LEA utilizes this particular programming is a local decision and then it would therefore be
[00:33:43] their responsibility to make sure that if they determine they're going to use it that they also
[00:33:47] would provide appropriate training and support for their teachers in utilizing it but no one is
[00:33:52] required to use that technology thank you and then just to clarify on line 270 279
[00:34:01] um it just says it's the artificial intelligence sandbox courses i guess that's the courses that
[00:34:10] limit the course to grades 9 through 12 does i guess that doesn't imply that
[00:34:14] gemini can only be used in grades 9 through 12
[00:34:18] no i don't think and i well i don't think that speaks to a certain provider anyways like that
[00:34:28] nine through 12 that would be whoever the district um contracts with once we have a
[00:34:34] some standards set so but i don't i don't know if that answers your question if there's something
[00:34:39] more to answer to that um i well i probably it's just understanding that relationship you know with
[00:34:45] the gemini in the school setting and and we've built provisions in for keeping it age appropriate
[00:34:51] and different grade levels we're seeing or kind of we're separating those out so i'm just
[00:34:55] AI able to be
[00:34:58] utilized in K-12
[00:35:00] at large or are they isolating it to specific grade levels and i don't know i don't know if matt
[00:35:09] matt winters do you have any insights on that you do okay
[00:35:18] all right talia longhurst is coming to the microphone she said she has all the all of our
[00:35:22] answers. Yay. I love it when someone has the answers.
[00:35:31] Sure. Talia Longhurst, Director of Career and Technical Education. I may not have all the
[00:35:37] answers, but let me attempt a few of them. So if you recall last fall when you were looking at some
[00:35:45] of our CT courses for standard approval, we wrote, I think board member Wood, this was partially your
[00:35:51] idea as well as some of the rest of the committee, some very specific standards
[00:35:55] that will go into any CTE course grade 7 through 12 that talks about AI. I know in
[00:36:02] digital literacy there is a little bit about ethics of AI, how to use AI, some
[00:36:07] of those very specific kinds of things, and then anything in grade 7 through 12
[00:36:12] where we talk about and teach about artificial intelligence as part of the
[00:36:17] course those same standards and even more in some cases will be included okay okay and we and i've
[00:36:26] just maybe this will piggyback on this just a little bit but at the top of the document when
[00:36:31] it says that the board will incorporate artificial intelligence this is line 10 digital literacy
[00:36:37] media literacy and technology standards into the utah course standards that's actually just one
[00:36:42] course right am i that's that cte course that is about technology throughout the grades i apologize
[00:36:50] can you can you ask one more time yeah um so it's on line 9 through 11 it says um 53e 4202 which
[00:36:58] requires the board to incorporate artificial intelligence digital literacy media literacy
[00:37:03] and technology standards into utah core standards yeah so it will be more than one course that's
[00:37:09] integrated in all kinds of courses. So I believe at least the earlier version of these bills,
[00:37:16] we have two bills really that kind of go hand in hand, this one and then HB 218, which is specific
[00:37:22] to digital literacy and digital studies requirements. So it requires more of a K-12
[00:37:28] integrated approach than we've ever done before. Okay. And so that framework, that AI framework
[00:37:33] is going to inform what this looks like. Is that an accurate statement? That's a math question.
[00:37:38] okay I'm phoning a friend a lot of those are in library media standards okay but
[00:37:48] the restrictions or the framework would be still we would be using that AI
[00:37:53] framework that we have to inform those yes is that accurate and if we wanted to
[00:37:59] change that AI framework that might be the place to start so that it informs as
[00:38:03] other other standards roll out that it it stays within those provisions yeah they have to work
[00:38:09] hand in hand okay we can't go outside of that i don't know if that helped board member green at
[00:38:15] all but yes thank you okay additional questions yeah i'm noticing is that we talk about in lines
[00:38:26] 2828 283 maintain secure and control digital environments that protect student privacy and
[00:38:30] safety, and we talk about privacy in the training element, but when it actually comes to the
[00:38:39] section about artificial intelligence use requirements, we don't mention student privacy
[00:38:46] in there at all.
[00:38:47] Does it need to be duplicated, or is it the fact that it's in the training, but the very
[00:38:52] specific line item of 282, 283 is related specifically to that sandbox course?
[00:38:59] Would it be appropriate to also put that up into the AI use requirements?
[00:39:07] Go ahead if someone has an answer.
[00:39:09] And I also, could I just add to that, are we requiring, I mean, I know there's been this firestorm in the media
[00:39:16] and people worried about the Gemini contracts, which really shouldn't be a firestorm
[00:39:22] because this was about a privacy agreement requiring Google to come to the table
[00:39:26] and sign that they will not use our students' information to build their models, to sell the
[00:39:31] data. No money was exchanged. This was about protecting our students if the districts choose
[00:39:37] to use it, and the state has more power to sign a stronger contract that other LEAs can then sign
[00:39:43] on to, right? Yes. And I would assume that there are also lots of teachers who may not know and
[00:39:49] may just be having students go on to Google Classroom anyway without these agreements in
[00:39:54] place so we want do do we need anything stronger in here to educate our teachers to make
[00:40:00] sure that because just by clicking on and going to a website you're signing an
[00:40:04] agreement and you may be giving away student data without knowing it that we
[00:40:08] want them to go through the privacy agreement and use the one that the state
[00:40:12] has signed an agreement with. I would say I've been on the data privacy student
[00:40:18] data privacy working group and board member Davis is on there with me for the
[00:40:23] last couple of years and one of their primary things is to make sure that
[00:40:29] educators know you can't just sign up for something it has to be you have to
[00:40:34] have a contract you have to have a data privacy agreement and you have to make
[00:40:37] sure it's approved by your district now I'm not saying that is a foolproof and
[00:40:40] people aren't doing it but it that's become the common narrative and I've
[00:40:45] heard that over and over so hopefully it's getting out there to people so that
[00:40:50] they're understanding just because something's available does not mean you
[00:40:53] can bring it into the schools. You have to go through a process and make sure
[00:40:56] that there's a, you know, some kind of agreement signed so that we are keeping
[00:41:00] students data privacy protected. Correct. There's nothing that prevents the
[00:41:06] board from putting additional safeguards into the room. I see it on line 70, though.
[00:41:11] Oh, you did? Yeah, great. Chair, Cheryl pointed that out, so thank you. And I had a bird
[00:41:18] tell me about it, so I'll send it a little birdie.
[00:41:22] Okay, once
[00:41:24] again, do we have any additional
[00:41:26] questions before we go for a vote?
[00:41:31] Really quick.
[00:41:32] I think, you know, as I was reviewing this
[00:41:34] material, I think
[00:41:35] the difficulty is with technology is that
[00:41:38] it changes so rapidly, and
[00:41:40] the other difficulty is that we're not quite
[00:41:42] sure fully the impacts
[00:41:44] of technology on our students
[00:41:46] and the benefits of technology in our
[00:41:48] classrooms and there is this balance that we need to make and i think that i see this um as a right
[00:41:55] now rule because that's the only way it can be applied and and often i'm i i i worry i think
[00:42:01] there's some purpose in putting certain technology pieces into code but this balancing is going to be
[00:42:07] really difficult to to understand fully until we have more time with technology and especially with
[00:42:12] AI. And so I just wanted to say that, you know, I feel like this is one of those spaces where
[00:42:18] it's similar to looking at students' different learning styles. And the same goes that some
[00:42:24] students can really achieve well and, you know, learn really well with technology and some students
[00:42:32] can't. So it's going to be really hard to balance. And I think that our public comment today was
[00:42:36] really great because I think there is so much use of technology that can benefit our students, but
[00:42:40] we have to make sure that we're balancing that. Is the law a great way to do that? I'm not sure,
[00:42:45] but I think this rule does a good job at least finding a place considering the current climate
[00:42:49] we're in. And I think more than anything, it begins to ask the question, right? What is too
[00:42:55] much? What is appropriate? Is it educationally valuable? And I'm sure if you've been in the
[00:43:00] schools at all, you've seen both the correct use and the incorrect use, right? And so I think it's
[00:43:06] just more, for me, it's drawing attention to those concerns and kind of putting an exclamation
[00:43:12] point on it saying you need to be more intentional about what you're doing. You just don't pick
[00:43:17] something up because it's there. So any other comments?
[00:43:21] Okay. I have an off-the-topic question here. Does any of this restrict the law or the rule
[00:43:29] in terms of devices for students with special education for when they're using
[00:43:37] liquid and when we have nonverbal students that have devices that are
[00:43:42] helping them with communication I've just seen in some classrooms where we're
[00:43:47] struggling with people saying oh they can't be on these devices that it's bad
[00:43:53] for them to be on devices but then we're actually limiting their communication
[00:43:56] and it's causing behavior and frustration do you want you want to get it I
[00:44:02] I was gonna say I can live line yeah the law has a line that specifically
[00:44:06] addresses the needs of students with respect to use of technology at 172 yeah
[00:44:12] 72 yeah 172 and we can read it out just so public is aware the instructional
[00:44:17] technology use consistent with a student's IEP or 504 plan and that it
[00:44:25] doesn't apply to so it doesn't apply to and then that's the piece that goes with
[00:44:28] it so people are aware of that that's a good question though so okay I'm not
[00:44:35] seeing additional comments so we're gonna go ahead and if someone wants to
[00:44:39] move this forward we did amend it so it'd be as oh no we already did that right
[00:44:43] okay I just got it we got to read it one more time so we can vote on it so the
[00:44:47] motion before the committee is that the committee approve our two seven seven
[00:44:50] three three four classroom technology draft one is amended on first reading
[00:44:54] and forward to the board for approval
[00:44:55] on second and final reading.
[00:44:57] All those in favor?
[00:44:59] - Aye.
[00:45:00] - Abstain.
[00:45:02] - Okay, so there's four in favor and one abstention
[00:45:05] by board member Green.
[00:45:07] Okay, thank you.
[00:45:09] Our next item is high school course grading requirements,
[00:45:12] R277717, and Jennifer Wadsworth,
[00:45:17] are you presenting this one as well?
[00:45:19] Yay.
[00:45:20] - Aw, thank you.
[00:45:21] Jennifer Wadsworth, policy advisor.
[00:45:23] So this is going to be a change to our --
[00:45:26] sorry, I pulled up my thing --
[00:45:27] high school course grading requirements.
[00:45:29] This one is a result from House Bill 502.
[00:45:31] You're going to be seeing even more 502 amendments coming through.
[00:45:35] This one is in direct response to the citizenship grading.
[00:45:40] So as you know, teachers are now allowed to allow up to 10% of the grade to be linked to citizenship.
[00:45:46] If an LEA chooses a policy, it's up to 20%.
[00:45:49] So we've got some new definitions in there, but the majority of the changes are going to be at the bottom of the bill, beginning on line 97.
[00:45:57] And there's a new section for specifically referencing citizenship grading standards.
[00:46:01] And we have Kathy Gray here with questions.
[00:46:03] We also have Megan Everett.
[00:46:05] Lots of people ready for your questions.
[00:46:07] Okay.
[00:46:09] Do you need additional information on this?
[00:46:13] Let me pull it up.
[00:46:18] I would love to understand the parent opt-out procedures.
[00:46:25] we're talking about on time, responsibility, what are our parents being allowed to opt out of?
[00:46:34] Such a great question. So they are allowed to opt out of the LEA's policy to allow their
[00:46:39] student's academic grade to be affected by that. However, they are not allowed to opt out of a
[00:46:44] teacher's choice to include that. So if an LEA decides to have a grading policy that allows their
[00:46:50] child to have their citizenship grade affect their academic grade, a parent can opt out of that.
[00:46:55] However, if they choose to opt out of that, they also choose to opt out of the scholarship program that is available with that.
[00:47:01] If a teacher in their own classroom has a 10% policy, a parent does not have that option.
[00:47:09] So is this written in a way that gives teachers the autonomy to hold students accountable for never being in class?
[00:47:19] And are we making it okay?
[00:47:24] Well, I just heard frustration from lots of high school teachers about being pressured from administration on graduation and passing students who've maybe never shown up in class and have not done their work.
[00:47:38] But gosh, we just need to let them graduate.
[00:47:42] And I think proficiency and whether they were in class and did the work and have the competency and knowledge should be more important than a graduation percentage.
[00:47:52] Yeah.
[00:47:54] I believe, and after speaking to Representative Welton, his intent is to try to mitigate that, right?
[00:48:00] That part of getting your degree is also learning those durable skills that you have to show up to work on time, you have to be able to.
[00:48:06] So I know that that's what this is seeking to fix.
[00:48:10] However, we do allow our LEAs to have that autonomy to decide if they want to implement that.
[00:48:16] And Representative Welton went a little step further saying that's fine.
[00:48:19] An LEA can choose that, but a teacher also gets to make that decision.
[00:48:23] So yes, I guess is the answer to your question.
[00:48:27] All right.
[00:48:28] I have, I mean, okay, I'm going from line 110.
[00:48:34] So attendance, that's easily measurable.
[00:48:38] Meeting deadlines, that's easily measurable, right?
[00:48:40] Did it come in on time?
[00:48:41] Was it right?
[00:48:45] 112 is not measurable at all, and I don't know what that means.
[00:48:48] Class participation and personal engagement.
[00:48:52] So that's very, whatever the educator decides on that.
[00:48:58] And we're telling them it has to be, that shall be part of their criteria.
[00:49:01] Is that in law that that piece has to be there?
[00:49:04] It is, yeah.
[00:49:05] So we can pull it up really quickly.
[00:49:07] And are they defined as durable skills in law?
[00:49:10] They are.
[00:49:10] I wonder if that's partly like group participation and collaboration, teamwork, being able to work with other classmates.
[00:49:22] A skill that's really beneficial as adults.
[00:49:26] Yeah, but really hard to measure in getting on whose group you're in.
[00:49:30] I'm just saying.
[00:49:31] I have group assignments in my classes, and I can tell which students are putting in effort and working well with the other students
[00:49:39] and which ones are just sitting there not participating
[00:49:41] or not engaging with their group mates on the project.
[00:49:48] And so there are rubrics that make it really clear
[00:49:52] on saying, like, this person participated,
[00:49:54] and they also have options for students
[00:49:57] to give their group members scores
[00:50:00] SCORES IS HOW THEY PARTICIPATED WITH THE GROUP AS WELL.
[00:50:02] AND I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY IN THAT IT'S VALUABLE TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE WITH
[00:50:07] OTHERS.
[00:50:08] I'M JUST -- WHAT I'M SAYING IS I -- BUT IT'S IN LAW.
[00:50:12] IS THE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION IN LAW, TOO?
[00:50:15] SO AFTER SPEAKING TO REPRESENTATIVE WELTON, WHAT HE WAS WANTING TO DO IS ALIGN IT WITH
[00:50:19] SKILLS THAT WOULD BE USED IN THE WORKPLACE.
[00:50:21] NO MATTER WHAT A STUDENT'S JOB WAS, THESE ARE THE THINGS YOU'D NEED.
[00:50:23] YOU'D SHOW UP, MEET YOUR DEADLINES, PERSONALLY ENGAGE WITH YOUR COWORKERS, AND BE ABLE TO
[00:50:28] effectively communicate okay can someone talk to us a little bit about the
[00:50:34] scholarship piece that money where's that coming from what's that look like
[00:50:39] it's coming from voluntary tax contributions okay so that would
[00:50:45] fluctuate so if someone is going to get a scholarship quote-unquote from the
[00:50:49] voluntary tax donations they don't we don't really know what that scholarship
[00:50:54] is it will fluctuate okay and who will make those decisions it's tasked with the
[00:51:00] board so we will okay usb well at some point yes yes because there's no money
[00:51:08] in that account no okay but the only way that an LEA can participate in that is
[00:51:13] if they have a policy that includes citizenship grading so an LEA cannot ask
[00:51:18] for the scholarship to be offered if they don't have that policy in place when
[00:51:23] there's a scholarship okay if there's a scholarship can they renew that every
[00:51:27] year if they choose to be part of that and if an LEA wants to be part of the
[00:51:31] scholarship they just have to have that policy in place so if they have the
[00:51:34] policy in place and there is money available then they are eligible but if
[00:51:37] they do not have a policy in place they have to get it before they can apply
[00:51:42] okay one one other question is this impacting college scholarship yes but
[00:51:51] that college, going into college, are we seeing, there's nothing in there about that, right?
[00:51:58] I'm sorry, I'm trying to remember.
[00:51:59] There was discussion in the committee, and I'm trying to remember.
[00:52:01] Yeah, it, of course, will relate to students who are applying for college
[00:52:05] if they have a citizenship grade that is not where they want it to be.
[00:52:10] I know that there are scholarships that are linked, that are not the state scholarship,
[00:52:13] but other scholarships that are linked to citizenship grades.
[00:52:15] It would, of course, affect that, but that's always been the case.
[00:52:18] Okay.
[00:52:20] I have a quick question as well.
[00:52:22] Yeah, go ahead.
[00:52:24] This is on line 126.
[00:52:29] And if I'm understanding this correctly,
[00:52:32] the LEA is the one that has to establish the procedures for parent opt-out request.
[00:52:38] We're not going to build, like, a model policy for that.
[00:52:40] That's something that will come from the LEA.
[00:52:43] That's correct.
[00:52:44] Do they have a timeline on that or a deadline?
[00:52:48] In terms of when they can opt out?
[00:52:50] no just when that's going to be developed i would assume oh i believe it comes in it's part
[00:52:54] of their policy so part of the policy is how this how the parents can opt out so when they
[00:53:00] establish a citizenship grading policy they would have to include this establish the opt-out correct
[00:53:06] is that um will that be approved by local boards or is that um more administrative district level
[00:53:14] I'm so sorry I don't mean to talk over you
[00:53:18] No you're okay
[00:53:19] So if they establish a LEAY policy
[00:53:22] It does have to be done following their procedures
[00:53:24] To establish a policy
[00:53:25] Open in public meetings all of that would apply
[00:53:28] Okay thank you
[00:53:30] Yeah
[00:53:30] Okay are there additional questions on this one
[00:53:33] Okay I'm looking for a motion
[00:53:36] I will recommend that the committee approve R277-717 high school course grading requirements
[00:54:04] draft one on first reading and forward to the board for approval on second and
[00:54:08] final reading. Okay, the motion before the committee is that the committee approve
[00:54:21] R277717 high school course grading requirements draft one on first reading
[00:54:26] and forward to the board for approval on second and final reading. All those in
[00:54:30] favor aye aye aye aye okay that passes unanimously and our next item is the
[00:54:40] child sex abuse and human trafficking instructions material approval
[00:54:54] welcome do you want to go ahead and introduce yourselves
[00:55:00] Good morning, I'm Tanya Alvarez, coordinator for prevention here at USBE.
[00:55:14] And I am Mindy Elliott, child sexual abuse and human trafficking prevention specialist.
[00:55:19] Okay, very good.
[00:55:21] I don't know if others have, I'm looking for my notes.
[00:55:24] I had just a couple of, some of these are just basic cleanups.
[00:55:31] I hope I can get the right documents right.
[00:55:40] Okay, I believe this is on the first one.
[00:55:48] Vector, is Vector the Venture Safe Schools?
[00:55:51] Is that the one that comes up as Vector?
[00:55:53] Okay, I have just a couple of comments that are probably just clean up things.
[00:55:59] Under the tips for posting, it says, it has these parentheses, and it says sextortion, and then it has a comment, remove revenge porn.
[00:56:13] I think we use sextortion in the state of Utah, and I think someone put a note in there indicating to remove that.
[00:56:21] So I don't, it probably doesn't need to be part of the text.
[00:56:24] And maybe it's not in the, do you know what I mean?
[00:56:26] Or maybe they need to just make sure that language is consistent because we really don't use revenge porn.
[00:56:32] In our laws, it is sextortion.
[00:56:34] So if it's in their script, it probably needs to be updated.
[00:56:38] And they have it actually in there to remove that.
[00:56:40] So anyway, so it's under the tips for posting.
[00:56:46] STK12.
[00:56:46] I don't, it didn't have a page number, so I'm sorry.
[00:56:48] It's under their thing.
[00:56:51] at the end of this document I think this is the one this is the one that I think it must have come
[00:56:58] from Ohio but it has all the Ohio references like the Ohio Department of right the Ohio this the
[00:57:06] Ohio that and I'm like oh I probably should say Utah so their their references or child
[00:57:12] prevention references need to be updated so they reflect the state of Utah Ohio yeah
[00:57:19] okay that's that's what I have on the first one I don't know if others have
[00:57:26] any feedback on venture safe schools human trafficking the other the other
[00:57:33] note which you can pass this along is that the warning signs one for vector
[00:57:39] was really well done I thought whatever they did with warning signs and I know
[00:57:44] it's been so long it's been a week almost a decade since then but I just
[00:57:49] put a note in there that I thought that was extremely well done so okay that's
[00:57:55] what I have on 24850 I don't do others have anything under that particular item
[00:58:02] okay so chair Earl just a question are are you wanting us to go back to the
[00:58:13] vendor and provide these suggestions you're gonna need to because if it
[00:58:17] doesn't have Utah's content, it really, it's not, why would we, when I say Utah's content,
[00:58:24] like the resource page, right? I mean, they're going to have to update that. So yes, do you want
[00:58:27] a formal motion for that? Okay. That's up to the committee. What does the committee want?
[00:58:33] Yeah, let's make a formal motion. Yeah, we, okay, we can do a formal motion and then.
[00:58:38] Yeah, we can. Well, can, yeah, I felt like the material was really well done and I wouldn't want
[00:58:45] to hold approval so is there a way does it well I just would I would want those
[00:58:52] updated is all so I don't what do we we can make a motion that they update those
[00:58:57] and that's for next month when it comes to this full board right and that's
[00:59:01] what we've done it in the past is just pen like recommended approval pending
[00:59:06] these changes and then we make sure that they make those changes before we go to
[00:59:09] board yeah okay that sounds good okay so let me just make a formal motion who's
[00:59:14] typing it okay that they you we check under the section tips for posting and
[00:59:20] that it remove revenge porn and put the sextortion which is the language we use
[00:59:27] in Utah in our law okay so update make sure that's updated and then on the
[00:59:35] resource page. Oh, sorry. Can I go a little faster than that?
[00:59:44] Sextortion. I guess I don't need to look at you. I can look here and then I can tell how fast to go, right?
[00:59:50] And then the second piece would be that the resources reflect Utah's resources and not Ohio's.
[01:00:00] And I'm sure that you guys probably already have that
[01:00:04] or the health department or whatever.
[01:00:06] It's actually in the minimum standard.
[01:00:08] Oh, okay.
[01:00:11] Yes, and let's also just put the reference number.
[01:00:17] So it's 24850.
[01:00:20] So we've got the right.
[01:00:27] and 24850 that's the reference number yep yep any additional comments then no
[01:00:37] I thought it was just that I thought it was really well done so I guess yes okay
[01:00:44] let me go ahead and put that motion out there for us move that the curriculum
[01:00:51] 24850 under the section tips for posting the words revenge porn be replaced with
[01:00:58] sextortion and the resources reflect Utah's resources not Ohio's and then we
[01:01:06] need to probably put at the end of that and move to the board full board for
[01:01:10] approval okay okay let's do the amendment this is kind of is this an
[01:01:19] amendment maybe I don't know I don't know I feel like it is okay yeah let's
[01:01:24] just move this one forward and then they just pending and we can put that
[01:01:28] pending changes it will be brought to the full board and I already take yeah
[01:01:40] yeah pending changes okay these changes yeah there you go does that look anything okay you're clear
[01:01:58] what needs to happen there and stuff okay all right so before we're moving this before the
[01:02:02] committee that the committee that in curriculum 24850 under this section tips for posting the
[01:02:09] words revenge porn be replaced with sextortion and that the resources reflect utah's resources
[01:02:16] not ohio's and forward to the full board for approval pending these changes okay and i clarify
[01:02:22] if if that the wording where it says in forward to the full board for approval pending these changes
[01:02:29] does that mean it comes back to committee we approve it and then forward it
[01:02:34] or will we know that it's been changed first
[01:02:40] and then they'll forward it?
[01:02:43] Previously what we did is once it was changed,
[01:02:47] staff had sent the materials and the changes to us
[01:02:51] so that we would be aware of those prior to the next board meeting.
[01:02:55] So as soon as those become available,
[01:02:57] that's what we've previously done.
[01:02:59] So I don't see holding this up as long as we're,
[01:03:03] you know what I mean,
[01:03:03] as long as they're able to make the changes prior to the next board meeting okay so we can expect
[01:03:08] that same action go ahead yeah uh deputy superintendent leah boris we could make a document
[01:03:14] for you that would as soon as the changes are made that would document that they were done so it was
[01:03:19] really easy and clear okay thank you okay so that's and that's what we'll do okay all those in favor
[01:03:26] - Aye.
[01:03:27] - Aye.
[01:03:31] Board Member Green, did you vote aye?
[01:03:33] - Yes, I said aye.
[01:03:34] - Okay, aye, my apologies.
[01:03:36] I don't know if it cut off when you...
[01:03:37] Okay, that passed unanimously.
[01:03:40] Okay, the second item we're onto is 24846 On Watch,
[01:03:44] Combating Trafficking Through Education,
[01:03:47] Adult Serving Youth.
[01:03:49] And any comments on this one?
[01:03:53] I had a couple.
[01:03:56] I just wanted to say that this is, the new draft is great, Megan, or wait, sorry, we're
[01:04:06] not on the next agenda item.
[01:04:07] No, we're still in the, we've got two more items in this one.
[01:04:13] But that's good.
[01:04:15] We'll probably recognize you twice on that one, Megan, if that's okay.
[01:04:19] There, okay, this is going to be, I'm not sure how to find this, but you can search
[01:04:25] this.
[01:04:26] We referenced Sean Reyes.
[01:04:28] He's not the attorney general anymore.
[01:04:29] If we could maybe either update it or word that
[01:04:31] so it just says attorney general and not actually a name.
[01:04:37] And I just-- there wasn't-- I had to scan it.
[01:04:40] I actually wasn't able to get a hold of the video,
[01:04:42] so I had to read the whole document, if that makes sense.
[01:04:45] So just scan the document and just make sure wherever that is
[01:04:48] that it's somehow updated so it's current.
[01:04:53] The other question I had is it references disassociation.
[01:04:58] This is not a settled situation.
[01:05:00] science. And that was just one piece that I just kind of had a question around if it's
[01:05:06] an accurate representation. So maybe, I don't know who the policy, well, whoever this is,
[01:05:18] maybe ask them if they can provide some better research or something. The disassociation has
[01:05:23] some really, it's kind of a, I don't know, it's not settled science, I guess I should say.
[01:05:30] so i don't know if it's video that's the that's the thing is i don't know where because i didn't
[01:05:37] i wasn't able to watch the video so i don't know how that sits in the video
[01:05:39] i don't remember that standing out in the videos when i watched them um and i went through both i
[01:05:50] thought again i thought this was a curriculum that was well chosen and really well done it
[01:05:55] provided different scenarios that a lot of our children face and and red flags to look for and
[01:06:02] and how to help and it ended it ends on hope and healthy relationships and healing and i really
[01:06:08] appreciated that because this is sadly something that i don't know that there's any family that it
[01:06:13] hasn't affected if you look at cousins aunts uncles you know like it's um with the widespread
[01:06:20] pornography all over that online has allowed to just be such an epidemic this
[01:06:29] is a fallout so I appreciate that we're educating our our students and giving
[01:06:34] them tools go ahead so so Cheryl I'm wondering if you want would you want
[01:06:42] them to submit to you research would you want just I don't know that research
[01:06:48] would suffice quite honestly i maybe i need to go look and watch the video i don't see it anywhere
[01:06:55] like as i'm just looking at the transcript too where it stands out as something highlighted
[01:06:59] okay and when i watch the videos um i mean i think isn't that like a protective mechanism that's
[01:07:07] in the community when something's super painful you do like kind of put up blocks isn't that what
[01:07:12] That's what I'm saying is it has its positive uses, but it's also been misused too.
[01:07:19] So do you have a comment on that?
[01:07:22] I was just going to say, I mean, it is a term that's fairly common within the world of mental health.
[01:07:28] And I'm just wondering what direction it is.
[01:07:31] I right now don't do anything with it because I don't have enough information to do something with it.
[01:07:37] So like I said, I couldn't watch the videos.
[01:07:39] I don't know.
[01:07:40] Maybe I've got to see if someone can help me get on those.
[01:07:42] i couldn't for whatever reason i couldn't figure out how to do that so so why mine was reading and
[01:07:48] maybe maybe just that it wasn't it's it's it's a possibility not an emphasis does that make sense
[01:07:55] so maybe it's not yeah and i would be happy to look at that with you and help okay so maybe after
[01:08:00] our meeting i can meet with you and see if i could do that okay that's all i had on that one i i did
[01:08:05] think that the situations were were presented and gosh I don't know like one
[01:08:12] of them kind of kept me up at night to be honest with you but it's the real
[01:08:15] life kind of situation that took place so I think just drawing attention that
[01:08:19] and I think I'm just appreciative this board and the legislature over the last
[01:08:24] maybe five years that we put structures in that when we're getting materials now
[01:08:28] we're getting such quality materials that we're we're we don't have pages and
[01:08:33] pages of concerns right it's it's one two one two or three things that we can
[01:08:39] look you know I mean that we look at or whatever so it's credit to I'm sure
[01:08:44] everybody here has worked hard on that so we've really got the best quality
[01:08:47] materials coming before us or not coming before us because they didn't meet the
[01:08:50] criteria right so thank you okay I'm looking for a motion on this one I move
[01:09:09] that the committee approved the child sexual abuse and human trafficking
[01:09:12] prevention instruction materials 24846 on watch combating trafficking through
[01:09:18] Education, Adults Serving Youth, and forward to the board for final approval.
[01:09:24] Chair, can we clarify?
[01:09:26] Yeah.
[01:09:26] Did you, sorry, Deputy Superintendent Voorhees, did you want the replacing Sean Reyes with
[01:09:33] Attorney General in the motion, or did you just want?
[01:09:36] I just, if, I don't know if it's in the video.
[01:09:38] Do you see what I'm saying?
[01:09:39] So I don't know if it's something.
[01:09:41] It's in the video, because that was the current Attorney General at the time.
[01:09:45] Because I was reading the transcript, so it's hard to,
[01:09:48] Do you know what I mean?
[01:09:48] Know how that played out.
[01:09:50] So I would be happy to reach out to the organization
[01:09:53] and request that they update that attorney general piece.
[01:09:57] I think as I listen to it, that's who
[01:10:00] the attorney general was at the time and that's who they were working with and so they were just
[01:10:04] giving him credit so i don't think it matters and maybe it doesn't matter all i'm saying is i read
[01:10:09] the transcript so while he was attorney general this was a big part of what he worked on so
[01:10:13] and and i reach out to organizations regardless and so i would be happy to to pass along that
[01:10:18] and just make sure that we're just have them do it to see if there's any right thing that may be
[01:10:23] that may be off on that or something and if not i'm fine with that i thought the content was
[01:10:28] spot on, so. Okay, so we're just, we're going to leave that just vague. Okay. All right, so the
[01:10:34] motion before the committee is that the committee approved the Child Sex Abuse Human Trafficking
[01:10:40] Prevention Instructional Materials 24846 on watch, combating trafficking through education,
[01:10:48] adult serving youth, and forward to the full board for final approval. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.
[01:10:54] That passes unanimously, and then our last one is 24852, Education to Protect K-6 Abuse Prevention, Elementary Student Child Sexual Abuse, and forward to the book.
[01:11:08] Okay, on this one, and I sent that email, and did you get a chance to watch it?
[01:11:16] Do you have some feedback?
[01:11:19] And we can give some public, I'm trying to find my email that I sent so that people have a reference.
[01:11:26] So in that, in this particular, it was the third grade module, or the third module, I don't know if it's third grade.
[01:11:34] There just is, there's some confusion because you see an adult male putting his hand on the shoulder of a child.
[01:11:43] And that, you can tell it was an adverse kind of, you know, don't touch me kind of thing.
[01:11:48] And then very next frame, you see another individual putting a hand on the shoulder.
[01:11:54] But then it's, I don't know, it seemed to send some mixed messages.
[01:11:58] But, yeah.
[01:11:59] Would it be all right if I provided a little bit of feedback on that?
[01:12:02] Would you?
[01:12:02] Yes.
[01:12:03] Yes.
[01:12:04] So the same with, they do the same.
[01:12:07] They talk about hugging.
[01:12:08] They talk about touching.
[01:12:08] And they do show both of those images.
[01:12:12] And I believe that it's very important to distinguish the difference between, which, if you read the script that goes along with it,
[01:12:17] they do have conversation about what is okay and what is not okay when it makes you feel
[01:12:21] uncomfortable. And I do believe that that is real life. Sometimes somebody can touch you on the
[01:12:25] shoulder and it's comfortable. And then sometimes somebody could also do that same action and it is
[01:12:31] uncomfortable. And they talk about through that, that, those feelings and that, that uncomfortable
[01:12:36] feeling and then what to, how to appropriately respond. So did you coordinate the, so you're
[01:12:41] saying you took the script with the video and you felt like the explanation was. Right. And I did
[01:12:46] It is. Well, I would just say after you sent the email, I watched the video again and read the
[01:12:51] script. And I appreciated going back through it. But I am full, I'm confident passing it on that
[01:12:58] we, our children do need to be armed to understand it's the feeling inside. Learning to tune into
[01:13:04] that inner voice that says something's off here is what will keep them safe. And I think how the
[01:13:09] script is handled with the video, because yes, the same action coming from different people with
[01:13:15] different intent can mean different things. And learning to tune into that inner voice in third
[01:13:19] grade is a key year for that, I think was well done. I'll back the script up with it over the
[01:13:25] next month then and look at that. The only other question I had on that had to do with the language
[01:13:31] of inspection. I've never seen that used. And I actually appreciated that they included that
[01:13:39] because that is sometimes something that we see when we do have sexual abuse, right? They're
[01:13:42] showing private parts or inspecting private parts and along those same lines like sometimes it is
[01:13:49] appropriate to inspect something and I did appreciate your your feedback and your opportunity
[01:13:54] for me to think through this a little bit and when she said inspect this doll like sometimes it is
[01:13:59] it is appropriate to inspect things and sometimes it is appropriate to do like the like the talking
[01:14:06] and the touching like we talked before and then sometimes it's not and so I appreciated that
[01:14:10] conversation that did come along with the strip along with that video piece
[01:14:14] because yeah sometimes I'm looking at something and inspecting it sometimes
[01:14:18] when I'm looking at something and inspecting it it is inappropriate and it
[01:14:21] just goes along with those feelings and helps distinguish those those okay
[01:14:25] situations and those not okay situation you felt like that it kept that it
[01:14:28] within the free okay I do okay those were the those are the only ones I found
[01:14:31] there on the that those particular ones so did anybody else have any comments on
[01:14:37] those? Okay, all right, I'm looking for motion on the final one. Okay, I'll make a motion
[01:14:47] that the committee approve the Child Sexual Abuse and Human Trafficking Prevention Instruction
[01:14:51] Materials 24852, Education to Protect, K-6, Abuse Prevention, Elementary Student
[01:15:00] child sexual abuse and forward to the board for full board for final approval
[01:15:05] okay any additional comments all right okay so the motion before the committee
[01:15:11] is that the committee approved the child sex abuse and human trafficking
[01:15:17] prevention instructional materials 24852 education to protect K through six
[01:15:24] abuse prevention elementary student child sex abuse and forward to the full
[01:15:28] board for final approval. All those in favor? Aye. Okay, that one passes unanimously. Okay,
[01:15:37] and I'm actually going to say we're going to take an eight-minute break. All right, we're going to
[01:15:42] go ahead and start back up. Thanks for letting us take just a little bit of a break. It's kind of
[01:15:47] nice to do that occasionally. All right, we are on item 3.6, standards review process,
[01:15:56] And we've been working on this for a little bit, right?
[01:16:00] A lot of discussion.
[01:16:02] There's the code associated with this next year.
[01:16:06] It looks like they're considering it for sun setting.
[01:16:11] Am I right in saying that?
[01:16:13] That is the code piece?
[01:16:14] Some elements.
[01:16:15] Some elements.
[01:16:17] Okay, so whatever we change here,
[01:16:20] we'd need to kind of engage with some legislative things going on.
[01:16:22] So that's where we need to just keep that in mind.
[01:16:29] Any board members have comments before I kind of
[01:16:31] put some recommendations out there?
[01:16:35] Go ahead.
[01:16:36] Thank you for your work on this.
[01:16:38] Appreciate it.
[01:16:40] That's good.
[01:16:41] OK.
[01:16:44] Hopefully I'm looking at the right one.
[01:16:46] Did you do anything more?
[01:16:47] It's the May 18, 2026, right?
[01:16:49] Or is there something more that I'm--
[01:16:51] I actually was looking at that one the wrong one yesterday too so um so what I
[01:17:00] wanted to point out is we discussed last time kind of like the so I was talking
[01:17:05] big picture about adding the what I like what you call them here lead liaisons
[01:17:14] and we were I was talking big picture about having those people and then we
[01:17:19] kind of went back and forth on trying to understand how that would work with with internally with
[01:17:24] usbe staff and how they're picking them and how like their requirements and stuff so i think that
[01:17:29] lead liaison section is is great and i think it outlines everything that we've talked about
[01:17:33] um so i wanted to point that out and then the only other part that i was thinking about
[01:17:40] in this was
[01:17:43] when it comes to, okay, so I feel like
[01:17:48] in my fourth year on standards now, I feel like there is
[01:17:52] there, we had
[01:17:56] changed this process to allow for board member review
[01:18:00] and then I think at the time that made sense, just
[01:18:04] to put that out there, but now
[01:18:06] how with the review process can you just kind of like do it like a top level
[01:18:11] how that works and is there still a board member review process or is that
[01:18:15] combined with the public process because now that I think thinking about it even
[01:18:19] though we've changed it I wonder if it's worthwhile member Earl and I don't know
[01:18:23] if you have any opinions about that if it's important to have a separate board
[01:18:27] member review time to submit comment comment and feedback or if it could just
[01:18:33] be lumped in with the public feedback period, time period.
[01:18:42] I'm going to make a suggestion, and I hope everybody's okay at this.
[01:18:49] For some reason, I did not actually pull this document up and look at it, and I apologize.
[01:18:54] I printed off the May, and I began formulating, and I just owe you an apology, because now
[01:19:00] I'm like, oh, I'm not on the same page.
[01:19:03] Does that make sense?
[01:19:04] I've got things, and I've got this.
[01:19:06] And is it OK if we shift this to the last discussion item
[01:19:11] and then pull it back up?
[01:19:13] Is that all right with everyone?
[01:19:15] So that I have time to at least read through it,
[01:19:18] so that we're on the same page, we're not having to--
[01:19:23] does that make sense?
[01:19:24] Would you mind?
[01:19:25] And then we'll go to the library policy
[01:19:28] and the special ed recommendations,
[01:19:32] and then pull that up at the end,
[01:19:33] trying to still give us a good 20, 30 minutes
[01:19:36] for the discussion so I can at least kind of skim
[01:19:37] through it, but go ahead.
[01:19:39] - Well, I just wondered for the discussion,
[01:19:40] if you wanted Megan to go through an overview.
[01:19:42] - Yeah, actually, Megan, do you want to just
[01:19:44] go through it real quick and then we'll,
[01:19:46] 'cause then the public knows as well
[01:19:48] what we're looking at doing and changing.
[01:19:52] - For sure.
[01:19:53] Megan Everett, Director of Teaching and Learning,
[01:19:55] and are you looking at the one that says standards revision
[01:20:00] process concurrent committees or I think the one that says June 5th 2026 is that the one you're
[01:20:08] referencing yeah that's the one that I have the right one open and I'm apologizing I did not
[01:20:14] yeah uh no no okay there's one that says example of full standards process yeah yes okay that's
[01:20:25] that's which would say example of full standards process when you click on it it does it say that
[01:20:32] at the top in both letters yeah that's that's the one yeah i'm trying to follow yeah june 5th
[01:20:41] 2026 example of full standards process this this is you're referencing the attachments list here
[01:20:50] and civic clerk yes it says standards process overview june 2026 this is this is taking some
[01:20:57] of those ideas from the last meeting and putting them into a a usable format okay on there thank
[01:21:04] you yeah so we're going to go through that but then i think we're going to move it to the end
[01:21:08] and then keep working on it at the end if that's okay go ahead yeah thanks so megan everett director
[01:21:13] of teaching and learning so in the example full standards process it starts with the queuing
[01:21:18] rubric that we've been using um but moving that to as you suggested a 10-year review cycle um with
[01:21:27] starting to queue it after at least six years of implementation so or after that fifth year so not
[01:21:33] until the sixth year could you even begin to queue um which is where you get some feedback you look
[01:21:39] at the things that have changed and you bring it forward and say you know are you ready to consider
[01:21:44] a process here or not so then you once you make a decision from that point to
[01:21:52] open the standards or not then we would make the two concurrent committees and
[01:21:57] then the rest a good bit of this details what that could look like so the review
[01:22:02] committee would be the one that's been more historically appointed and that
[01:22:07] would be the suggestion is appointed by the state board and the chair and you
[01:22:12] would take nominations and make those decisions and that would include teachers business
[01:22:17] representatives higher ed and that's what's currently on that review committee the writing
[01:22:23] committee would be composed at the same time and more typical of the process we have currently
[01:22:28] where we take in applications and it's not vendors international applicants but it's people in the
[01:22:38] field that are their experts. And then, of course, our staff. So there's a little description there
[01:22:44] of how nominations and applications have differed previously, kind of what we use for that
[01:22:49] information. A new step then is to add in the lead liaisons. So once those committees are decided
[01:22:58] upon and formed, the first thing that you would do is select kind of the lead liaisons or speakers
[01:23:03] for each of those groups and that's who becomes the people that interact with each other between
[01:23:09] the groups and then interacts with the board throughout the process and then the staff have
[01:23:14] to be a part of that because they live here there are some core responsibilities for each of those
[01:23:21] detailed which you could set but the research group or the appointed group they're more of
[01:23:30] your research group they make kind of the overarching recommendations similar to what we've
[01:23:35] had previously but they'd be involved a little bit more throughout to make sure we're bringing
[01:23:39] it back to what those initial recommendations were whereas the review committee or the
[01:23:45] writing committee would be the primary actual writers and drafters of the standards as they
[01:23:52] have been. And then we just talk a little bit about the agreement that we said might be signed
[01:24:02] between the review committee and the writing committee members to better detail the expectations
[01:24:07] for each, what the right to privacy might be, what the liaison responsibilities might be,
[01:24:15] how they could or could not engage in any kind of advocacy around the standards that they've
[01:24:20] written or where the appropriate points for that would be which we talked about being able to be
[01:24:26] put into their SSA that they signed for being a member in the first place and then we kind of go
[01:24:32] through just a high level it's the standards process but it's just simplified for being able
[01:24:42] to read it and discuss it and how that could look and so we create those committees in step one
[01:24:49] and and research and do those kinds of things and step two we're really doing a research phase which
[01:24:55] is a little bit new um that's where we look at the things that exist out in the world compared
[01:25:00] to other standards best practices in step three that's the first point of
[01:25:05] collaboration then so the review committee the writing committee and board
[01:25:09] members could be together and discuss what's been found from that research
[01:25:13] phase and what recommendations would be from there we'd move into the initial
[01:25:18] drafting which is the longest part of the process just like it currently is of
[01:25:23] writing those standards come back after that and bring back together the writing
[01:25:29] committee liaisons, the review committee, and board members to discuss that first draft so you
[01:25:34] could have your initial questions answered. And then that's also a point where the board could
[01:25:40] still give specific feedback, but you'd have a chance to get your questions answered and give
[01:25:47] that feedback kind of in the same bubble of time. Once they update that draft, it would go out for
[01:25:55] public comment as it does now but we shortened that draft time or we're requesting the legislation
[01:26:00] be able to shorten that draft time to 45 days make updates from that public comment and board
[01:26:05] members would still be able to give more input into that public comment point if they wanted to
[01:26:10] similar to now you could take the public comment survey if you wish to so they come back and discuss
[01:26:16] at a collaboration point three what those suggestions and recommendations were from
[01:26:22] public comment what needed to be done with them which would help direct a revision phase
[01:26:28] after that revision they come back and be able to answer any questions show you what changed
[01:26:34] have a little more discussion there before submitting that final draft that would go to
[01:26:39] standards and assessment and then the board so what that does is gives
[01:26:45] there's still a point of specific feedback for the board built in um there's still the writing
[01:26:53] committee leading the writing work but it would engage the review committee that did that initial
[01:27:00] research work at specific points and then would also give the board um and it's not detailed in
[01:27:07] here it'd be something to decide how much of the board you want you know is that just a committee
[01:27:11] is it a few named members is it two people is it everybody but give them specific points of
[01:27:18] contact where they could ask questions and collaborate at the same time it doesn't open up
[01:27:24] the writing committee or the review committee to have to be available full time every day because
[01:27:29] they are working professionals too um yeah so that's the big picture and then there was one
[01:27:36] other draft in there you don't have to pull it up but it's the concurrent committee standards
[01:27:39] revision process so where he took those suggestions and put them into like the
[01:27:45] process I do when I like board member reels suggestion wondering if the board
[01:27:53] member feedback form and public comment could be concurrent because I feel like
[01:27:57] then we could be looking or getting feedback from our constituents and
[01:28:01] sharing with our own teachers and superintendents and listening to what
[01:28:07] they're saying you know what the feedback is from our districts as we look at how to give feedback
[01:28:15] and I also wonder with the we are looking at having a targeted review where we don't have
[01:28:22] to do a full-blown review right so how can that be streamlined and differentiated on when we just
[01:28:27] need to update for legal code changes and add that's not part of this that's not part of that's
[01:28:33] totally separate process all right so this is just the full standards and and this is more of
[01:28:38] on a 10-year timeline now that we're looking at which i so appreciate thank you i and i guess i'm
[01:28:45] just going to i'm trying to figure out the concurrent you mean as updates are it almost
[01:28:51] feels like we've got to have a draft though before we get an update just because people are moving
[01:28:56] it has moving parts is that accurate yeah that's what that's what i would think is that what you
[01:29:01] were implying i'm not sure i was just trying to see well i guess yeah there wouldn't the public
[01:29:08] comment comes after there's already a draft a first draft correct yeah it does um right now
[01:29:15] the way that we've written it is they would make a draft um you would have that point of collaboration
[01:29:20] where they could present and share their draft you would still have the board member uh 30-day
[01:29:26] public feedback phase before they updated it and went to full public comment i think the suggestion
[01:29:35] if if i'm understanding would be to have that point of contact and feedback um but then your
[01:29:43] comments and public comments would be occurring at the same time which would shorten the timeline
[01:29:47] just a little bit i think that makes sense yeah i mean i remember why we we made that change
[01:29:54] originally, but I don't think that it is
[01:29:56] completely necessary anymore. I don't know if you agree,
[01:29:58] Member Earl. So you're saying
[01:30:00] you're saying okay sorry now I started reading here so you're saying that while
[01:30:04] it's out for public comment board members would be making comments I this
[01:30:09] is this is why I would not agree with that is because if we have significant
[01:30:14] recommendations of some kind they've been now gone not gone through a public
[01:30:19] comment period so I would recommend that we have and I understand why I mean if
[01:30:24] we're just kind of cutting time down that's fine but if there's if there's
[01:30:27] significant recommendations and then that and then we send it out for public
[01:30:35] comment then we have a different view of it versus does that make sense it's
[01:30:40] almost like a more finished product versus we have we're setting up both
[01:30:45] directions and in the end it may be very different than what went to public
[01:30:49] comment and that that's the only concern I have or at least some provisions of it
[01:30:52] different so I would I would want it as clean as it could be so that the public
[01:30:57] could actually address where we're wanting it to head from that point that's what I do just wonder
[01:31:04] if we could have a little more communication as board members like an email sent hey this is going
[01:31:10] out for public comment just so you know these standards are being revised right now um so that
[01:31:17] we know I I got feedback on leadership standards but I hadn't seen those and I didn't realize those
[01:31:23] were out for public comment so that would be helpful we could just know
[01:31:28] so i uh i do i understand trying to streamline everything i do see a a positive purpose for
[01:31:42] keeping the two separate you know public comments i'm probably more aligned with with what member
[01:31:48] real was or earl was giving as far as the feedback and then member real i'm trying to
[01:31:55] follow also on this document where you were thinking to combine that so step six and seven
[01:32:02] is is that what you were referencing that though that comment would be happening at the same time
[01:32:10] yeah that's what i mean i was just trying to shorten up a bit um but it doesn't show that
[01:32:16] on here that's just a suggestion you have yeah yeah that was okay yeah yeah it's not on there
[01:32:21] because i was looking for it and i couldn't know this hasn't separated out but i'm you know i i'm
[01:32:26] not um i'm not gonna you know it's not a hill i'm gonna die on it it depends just something
[01:32:36] that we've talked about over the process of the last four years but right well i see it's two
[01:32:41] public comment periods right like the draft is just open for public comment for people to read
[01:32:47] but then what's the differentiation with step seven that's where it's they can actually submit
[01:32:53] their comments but in step six it's just read only so in step six that's currently um its own
[01:33:01] step in our in the process we have right now and that's where it's brought to the board to release
[01:33:06] for public comment so that probably just needs a better um title for that section yeah and i and
[01:33:15] what i like about that and i think this hits on what um member brinton was saying like here being
[01:33:21] aware of when those are being released so step six seems to i'm understanding it correctly address
[01:33:27] that in that manner um i've also been a part of those 40 day 45 day uh or the public meetings and
[01:33:35] i've sat in on those when when usbe makes their way around the state you know um and see parents
[01:33:42] that show up and you sit around a table and you talk about the standards and you work through them
[01:33:46] and i found that that was something that was uh productive so i don't want to interfere with that
[01:33:54] as well and as as we've seen the comments that we received specifically about the math standards
[01:33:58] have been very helpful as well so i i'm kind of feeling like six and seven are pretty solid
[01:34:03] um so anyway those are my feedback we can just keep talking about this we'll just finish it
[01:34:10] on uh the question you have actually is oh sorry somebody talking no go ahead i didn't want to talk
[01:34:22] over someone sorry um this actually is in regards to the liaisons um i'm trying to find it i'm i'm
[01:34:31] going back up on page like one through three anyway my question is can board members direct
[01:34:41] the liaisons to to guide specific work normally we're you know we direct staff to do this towards
[01:34:52] those standards and they do that how what's that relationship between board members you
[01:35:00] know making a motion and directing the work with this new role if we are to implement them
[01:35:07] you have um we didn't say i believe it would be similar to the work of the writing committee right
[01:35:21] now where through staff you direct the writing committee to make changes update things so i
[01:35:28] think through staff you would update you would could direct the review committee to
[01:35:34] research something further pull some information whatever that whatever that request might look
[01:35:42] like okay so if we if we had that communication would that be the responsibility now of that
[01:35:50] lead person to take that back to the writing committee or is that going to be the job of
[01:35:56] designated staff to take that back to the writing committee?
[01:36:00] I think it would be a little bit of both. Staff would definitely be present, but it would be those
[01:36:04] lead liaisons that would be the interaction point between what you want to have done and
[01:36:11] everybody that is participating in the work. And how would we be able to track that?
[01:36:18] I feel like we have a pretty good idea of the accountability there between those requests and
[01:36:24] staff um so how would we be able to track that that communication was happening from our lead
[01:36:31] so that would be i guess i'm looking between step two and step three because in in step two
[01:36:41] they would meet board members can put recommendations together review committee
[01:36:45] writing committee starts kind of looking at the research right and then on step three
[01:36:51] oh no let's see and then they okay suggestions on step two are brought before the full board so
[01:36:57] i guess we would make a at that point some kind of a chart or something and then that would follow
[01:37:03] with whoever the lead liaisons is that maybe what would be the way that yeah i think it would be
[01:37:08] similar to how it's working now with the writing committee you make suggestions motions those kinds
[01:37:13] of things they get documented and then they take them back and put them into action i staff would
[01:37:18] still be present and apart um it would just be like any other meeting i is my imagining where
[01:37:25] but you but the difference from what's happening now would be instead of talking to staff only
[01:37:32] you would have them in front of you where they could ask follow-up questions as to what you mean
[01:37:37] or you could clarify with them what you mean so we're removing um staff as the gatekeeper staff
[01:37:45] are still present but you're having a little bit more direct conversation yeah that i think the
[01:37:49] benefit to me i mean i know that there's like the logisticals of like we gave you this feedback but
[01:37:54] it's it's similar when you even look at we give feedback in a lot of different ways and they
[01:38:00] usually give a response right so it might be oh okay great thank you this is your feedback on
[01:38:05] you know changing these parts of this strand we'll take it back to the committee and now we've been
[01:38:12] able to have a discussion understanding your viewpoint and understanding why you think it
[01:38:16] should be included or why we didn't include it and then they take it back and then just like how we
[01:38:21] have in those review documents it's like you requested this here's the writing committee's
[01:38:26] response but the benefit of having those liaisons is having that conversation about why did you not
[01:38:32] include this or why did you include this and i think that's huge i i just have to tell you i've
[01:38:37] I've just read through this, and I think maybe a couple of minor changes is I kind of, you know what I mean,
[01:38:43] I'm going to have to kind of lay it out and say, oh, who's where, when, you know, move little people around or something.
[01:38:47] I don't know.
[01:38:49] But I feel like Lego people or something like that.
[01:38:53] Yeah, I like that.
[01:38:55] So, I mean, I feel like just reading through that, there's a lot of, I think it's very simplified.
[01:39:01] I feel like it's getting to where, you know what I mean, that secondary committee kind of is a check, so to speak.
[01:39:09] I feel comfortable moving it forward, to be honest with you.
[01:39:12] Yeah, I'll also say, just from like a visual perspective, this, I have looked at, we have looked at so many of these revision process documents over the last four years.
[01:39:21] This is the one that like was the most easily digestible about the process.
[01:39:26] and i think all board members should read it because you know once it's approved because i
[01:39:31] think that if you're not on standards the process can be really confusing and i feel like there's
[01:39:35] still a little bit of time if there's between i mean obviously there's a lot of time right all
[01:39:39] the summer between now and august if there's some additional recommendations but anyways go ahead
[01:39:45] i have a couple questions too oh yeah go ahead um how often do the leads come will they come
[01:39:51] every time that that item is on the
[01:39:53] agenda
[01:39:54] or just as
[01:39:58] if step three is
[01:40:00] get you know triggered but we're on step three they they come for that but they don't need to
[01:40:04] come for step six just wondering that's a great question i think they i would envision them being
[01:40:16] present for each of those steps that that would be part of the questions that we would lay out
[01:40:21] um the alternative would be at these like kind of four labeled collaboration points that's what
[01:40:27] they would be held responsible for um i do think you would get better participation perhaps if you
[01:40:34] were able to do that if we think about working parents or business people or whoever you'd want
[01:40:39] to put on there um them knowing kind of those four points that they're responsible for would be
[01:40:45] and i'm going to be to that person i'm trying to understand this when if a if a board member were
[01:40:50] to make a motion for like a direct motion which is different than conversation does that go through
[01:41:02] the does the lead know what to do with that and you know what a motion actually means what
[01:41:09] authority that holds versus um staff which they they understand what that means you know the
[01:41:16] process of how that's implemented and utilized and would yeah for sure I don't envision that the
[01:41:24] lead liaisons would ever be interacting without staff present and so the staff would still be
[01:41:30] helping guide and facilitate that so they're just as they are right now with the writing committee
[01:41:36] saying like well this was a motion this is something we have to do or this is something
[01:41:39] we have to implement so they'd be there as guidance we also usually at the start of any
[01:41:44] whether it's writing or review committee do some um groundwork you know what what do we have to do
[01:41:51] what does the whole process look like and so i would imagine things like hey motions are directives
[01:41:57] that have been agreed upon um would be part of that conversation okay and our leads uh will they
[01:42:05] be compensated for their time for all you know if they do have to come throughout the whole process
[01:42:12] and for all the steps you know that's i guess 12 meetings outside of the regular
[01:42:19] writing committee meetings what does that look like yeah we have participant support costs that
[01:42:27] we pay currently the way that it's situated in legislation does not allow compensation for the
[01:42:33] review committee this would be moving it out of how it's currently detailed in legislation and so
[01:42:39] i would assume they could have the same kinds of participant support costs and ssa is that we
[01:42:45] write with all of our writing committee members and we do try to lay out with them ahead of time
[01:42:50] what that time commitment is going to look like and then um give them appropriate compensation
[01:42:56] it's 30 an hour in working time is what's currently in our in our rules around that plus
[01:43:02] their travel that they would need to do okay and then do we do we have to approve any of those
[01:43:09] budgets where does that money come from technically there is no money allocated to that um that's why
[01:43:17] you'll see staff do like in fiscal notes where um legislation looks like it's going to impact
[01:43:23] standards we've tried to input what those estimate of costs are um but otherwise they
[01:43:29] come from available funds within teaching and learning that are appropriate to be used so bless
[01:43:35] you um yeah but no i the the um costs for those don't specifically come before the board they're
[01:43:46] just within um teaching and learning if we have available funds sometimes i just know that like
[01:43:54] physical education we couldn't start till the beginning of july because we didn't have any
[01:44:00] funding to start it when we actually approved it yeah so it is a there is a funding piece to it
[01:44:06] that we can't just do a million standards because we don't have a million dollars just to do whatever
[01:44:10] we want yeah so there's an increase in in cost for the curriculum process then with a lead
[01:44:22] not necessarily um it would depend on how many staff or how many uh writers you have um the math
[01:44:32] process for example has a lot more writers because they're covering 12 grade levels than something
[01:44:38] like um social studies with only secondary or something like that so or the current civics
[01:44:46] course that's only one course right so the number needed can vary um and then we set our budget
[01:44:53] according to the necessary number making sure it's a mix of do you have enough representation
[01:45:00] and expertise to get the work done but also not just padding it because it's expensive to do
[01:45:07] and does that representation change does the number change on if it's a bigger
[01:45:13] writing committee or do we keep it to one and is it one
[01:45:18] are you asking about like the lead liaisons yes um right now the way that we wrote it
[01:45:29] was two to three liaisons from the review committee and um and then from the writing
[01:45:38] committee it doesn't look like we specified a number so it's not just one um but that could be
[01:45:44] decided upon there wasn't a specific number given okay and i was just oh i'm sorry we currently have
[01:45:52] lead writers who do a little bit more of the fine-tuning and grammar and brushing up and they
[01:45:58] do spend more time and we
[01:46:00] do typically pay them more
[01:46:02] because of that, these people
[01:46:04] would probably operate in the same way.
[01:46:07] Okay.
[01:46:08] Thank you.
[01:46:10] And I suppose if we
[01:46:12] needed to put something into
[01:46:14] code, we could make that request
[01:46:15] going into next year, right? If there's a need to even
[01:46:18] put some money behind
[01:46:20] when we ask for standards updates, but it
[01:46:22] sounds like we do that a little bit when we
[01:46:24] have a new law, but it doesn't
[01:46:26] fill the requirement for
[01:46:28] existing standards either correct so i can tell you historically it's cost maybe 40 to 50 000
[01:46:36] to do a standards revision um the math standards are in excess of about 80 000 right now
[01:46:42] not including the outside um review and it's just a number of hours thing yeah that's good
[01:46:50] Our board members allowed to email the leads moving forward if we adopt this. If we have specific questions, concerns, recommendations, what is that relationship between board members and leads? And I'm just asking because it seems like it would be the writing committee would have a level of more accessibility. And then just to understand what that relationship would look like.
[01:47:16] The way it's written right now is that that communication would happen at those specified collaboration points and then would also be detailed in whatever agreement gets written.
[01:47:27] I think that so right now it's on page seven one of the bullets suggests that lead liaisons can
[01:47:42] and should answer questions related to the standards at the designated points of interactions
[01:47:46] and the hope was that by doing that we don't overwhelm them when they're in the middle of
[01:47:52] their work day or attending to kids or whatever they do okay great thank you okay i i think we
[01:48:02] could do a motion at this point if someone wanted to move that forward okay i don't
[01:48:07] would have to just specify sorry i don't know there it is and we'd have to specify what's the
[01:48:20] title of the document here. It's standards process overview June 2026. Yeah and then
[01:48:33] we just need to put the title in there if someone's running that. So standards
[01:48:39] process overview June 2026. The current committee standards revision process
[01:48:49] draft June 2026 sorry there's a lot of names I should have named better I've
[01:48:54] learned a lesson we just make a motion that the committee move right and then
[01:48:58] just state that document does that work it says June 2026 June 2026 and
[01:49:18] forward to the board for approval full board for approval for final approval for
[01:49:25] final approval
[01:49:35] and I wouldn't use current type yeah yeah okay yeah I move that we move the
[01:49:43] I move that the committee move the June standards revision process, dated June 2026, and forward
[01:49:58] to the board for final approval.
[01:50:00] Okay. Any additional discussion on this item? Okay. So the motion before the committee is
[01:50:08] that the committee move the June standards revision process, June 2026, and forward to
[01:50:16] the full board for final approval. All those in favor?
[01:50:19] Aye.
[01:50:20] Aye.
[01:50:21] And I hope other board members will just have watched the meeting and be aware that
[01:50:26] it has been lengthened and we're moving to more of a 10-year process with targeted
[01:50:30] reviews and be aware of that okay board vote was an i however i do have a question about step 10
[01:50:37] i can't i do that okay yeah we just approved this but we can ask go ahead and ask a question
[01:50:43] it's step 10 so collaboration point four this is after updating the writing committee lead
[01:50:48] liaison share the final draft with the review committee and board members um and i'm i'm just
[01:50:55] want to clarify the how our staff engages now again like we've we've had staff that's kind of
[01:51:03] represented all of these steps i'm am i missing is a review committee different where is staff in
[01:51:12] step 10 and then i would apply that to all the other places where i'm not seeing again because
[01:51:16] it seems like staff has always been there representing this work so i was just wondering
[01:51:22] if they clarify that if we need to clarify that they need to be a part of the step well step 10
[01:51:28] says the review committee reviews the updated draft for clarity and makes any final recommendations
[01:51:33] to the writing committee after updating the writing committee lead liaisons share the final draft with
[01:51:39] the review committee and board members so that would be in committee meeting right
[01:51:43] yeah i envision that the staff is still a part of every step that's why they weren't called out
[01:51:51] separately they're still expected to be there did that answer your question emily yeah and
[01:52:00] so it's the lead liaisons that are that are now kind of shouldering
[01:52:09] this uh process and not staff i don't know if that's yeah isn't it the same thing as the lead
[01:52:19] writers that would come and who have presented to the board before yes megan's shaking her head yes
[01:52:29] okay yeah i don't envision that staff is is detached from this or that it becomes their
[01:52:33] responsibility we just want to um i think staff are the facilitators of this the entire way through
[01:52:41] just as they currently are okay all right thank you okay and once again if there's
[01:52:48] you know, additional comments or recommendations
[01:52:51] between now and August,
[01:52:53] let's, you know, reach out to Megan and others
[01:52:56] and see if we can come to, you know,
[01:52:58] some understanding of what would be effective.
[01:53:00] So thank you.
[01:53:02] Thank you for the document.
[01:53:03] Okay.
[01:53:03] And that passed unanimously
[01:53:04] in case we missed reporting that out.
[01:53:07] Thank you, Megan.
[01:53:08] Thanks, Megan.
[01:53:09] It's been a lot of work.
[01:53:10] We've worked on it for a number of months,
[01:53:12] taken it into a lot of contemplation,
[01:53:14] so we appreciate your thoughtful work on it.
[01:53:17] Yes, we do.
[01:53:18] Next item is our Sensitive Materials Model Policy, and we're going to actually start by going to the AAG for some feedback he has.
[01:53:28] Very limited.
[01:53:29] Limited feedback.
[01:53:32] Just push, yep, you're good.
[01:53:35] Get my computer to come up.
[01:53:36] And just introduce yourself if you don't mind.
[01:53:40] Darren Goff, I'm the Assistant, an Assistant Attorney General, Education Division Director.
[01:53:48] my computer is not responding to me one I I asked someone in my division to take a
[01:54:06] look at this and we had one comment and that had to do with selection criteria
[01:54:14] and the phrase in paragraph seven uplifting and captivating which the
[01:54:21] reviewer identified is not a statutory or rule-based criteria it's it's document
[01:54:32] our page four are the other items a statutory requirement like timeliness
[01:54:41] and permanence, readability and accessibility?
[01:54:44] I don't know.
[01:54:45] I'm just like, those are not criteria anywhere.
[01:54:47] This is just trying to create a framework, and it's a may, not a have to.
[01:54:51] And I think as a lawyer, he's looking, you know, if it's in the statute, you have sort
[01:54:56] of a safe harbor there because you've used a word from the statute, and you've
[01:55:00] you can obviously fall back to it and say that's what the statute commands his
[01:55:05] concern there was whether or not that that phrase could be interpreted as
[01:55:10] viewpoint discrimination and he had a recommendation to rephrase and offered a
[01:55:20] offered the phrase educationally enriching and I'm you know I don't want
[01:55:30] to spend a lot of time talking about discrimination but you know that was
[01:55:35] that was his concern I just looking at that educationally enriching versus
[01:55:43] uplifting and captivating and I don't remember exactly where those two came
[01:55:48] for me okay but i i like educationally enriching because i don't think everything is uplifting and
[01:55:57] happy in books we read i think there's hard there's war stories there's all kinds of things
[01:56:03] that we read that deal with adversity and overcoming and it's not always you hope at the
[01:56:09] end it's uplifting or that there's been a lesson learned but i think that might capture the same
[01:56:13] thing in a in a safer way or it's just about basketball that's true you know like sometimes
[01:56:18] it's like that we had the conversation last time about reading for pleasure like just for fun and
[01:56:23] so i and i almost think that i appreciate that feedback i'm wondering if we even need to we i
[01:56:30] mean we could put the um suggestion in there or we could just i think that a lot of these other
[01:56:36] criteria kind of cover a lot of it already too and might i just remind everyone this is a may
[01:56:41] and I mean I don't mind the change um kind of because so much of our literature we're giving
[01:56:50] our kids is depressing um and negative and derogatory and so it's it's merely a there this
[01:57:00] isn't a recommendation it has to meet all these areas but certainly it's you know I mean the other
[01:57:06] pieces are not in the code as well but I see what you're you're saying if that maybe cat caught his
[01:57:11] The only concern would be if an LEA seized on that phrase and used it to exclude a book and possibly a plaintiff in litigation seizes on the phrase and says,
[01:57:33] well, you know, it wasn't uplifting and captivating.
[01:57:36] Gotcha.
[01:57:37] You're discriminating against my viewpoint.
[01:57:39] Okay.
[01:57:40] We're just watching out for you in terms of litigation.
[01:57:42] Yeah, yeah.
[01:57:43] And if it's a hot word, then maybe that's something to think about.
[01:57:46] Okay.
[01:57:48] Does someone want to make that motion then?
[01:57:50] Okay.
[01:57:51] I'll make a motion to strike uplifting and captivating number seven in that section
[01:57:59] and replace it with educationally enriching.
[01:58:03] oh it's already there I'm like okay any discussion further discussion that we've
[01:58:15] already kind of discussed it a little bit okay I'm I'm not hearing any so on
[01:58:23] number seven under let me tell you what it's under just so we're oh I'm well we
[01:58:29] have page four but let's tell us under the selection of materials for library
[01:58:33] collection we are going to change where the suggestion is to strike uplifting
[01:58:42] and captivating and to replace that with educationally enriching all those in
[01:58:49] favor aye aye aye no other did you have anything else dad no all right all right
[01:59:04] when I looked at our document I thought we had made the motion about adding the
[01:59:08] obscene animal abuse but I think it has to have the word obscene in front of it
[01:59:16] because that's what it says in code am i it does it says obscene animal abuse yeah but there's other
[01:59:23] places it does in one spot but there's a couple of other places where i just think it says animal
[01:59:27] abuse so we need to make sure it's just consistent so i'm just going to make the motion that anywhere
[01:59:32] we have animal abuse it it's obscene animal abuse so that it's the same as the code yeah page five
[01:59:39] has that where it's not there there's a cup no there's a couple so I just didn't
[01:59:46] go through and highlight all of them but yeah because it's on page seven is it
[01:59:51] yeah so anywhere that that's found in the document that we just make sure it's
[01:59:54] it's accurate there with what's in law
[02:00:00] I know we talked about that, but we must not have made a motion yet for that to happen.
[02:00:05] Do we need a motion?
[02:00:07] Any discussion?
[02:00:08] I thought I just placed that.
[02:00:11] Any discussion to that?
[02:00:13] No.
[02:00:14] Board Member Greene?
[02:00:16] Okay, so the motion or the amendment before the committee is that we replace animal abuse
[02:00:23] with obscene animal abuse so it matches code.
[02:00:26] All those in favor?
[02:00:27] Aye.
[02:00:28] Aye.
[02:00:29] MS. Okay, that passes unanimously. If anyone else has some, they can hop in, or I have a couple.
[02:00:41] Okay, on page 12, under Subjective Sensitive Material Review Process C number 2, it says,
[02:00:49] "Upon initiating this process, the school LEA administrator or designee will convene a subjective
[02:00:56] sensitive material review committee within a reasonable time and i want to i want to put on
[02:01:03] there not more than 30 days so that it can't be six months out or right that there's some it says
[02:01:10] reasonable but reasonable is great but what you know 30 days may not be the perfect number i'm not
[02:01:17] sure but i want to but not more than so i'm going to propose 30 days and if someone wants to amend
[02:01:23] that they can. I mean, I don't like the idea of putting a timeline in there because I think
[02:01:31] reasonable time is basically saying like, you know, you did not meet reasonable time. But
[02:01:35] if for some reason, I think one to consider just like what we have to consider as a board is that
[02:01:43] we only meet every once a month. And so sometimes I feel like 30 is too tight.
[02:01:48] Okay, 45.
[02:01:50] 60.
[02:01:52] No, I'm not 60.
[02:01:55] 60, 60, anybody got 60?
[02:01:58] I would go as far as 45, but I wouldn't go beyond that
[02:02:01] because this is a book that's sitting now on.
[02:02:04] But it's pulled.
[02:02:08] You're under the subjective, not the objective any longer.
[02:02:11] Is that true?
[02:02:15] Davina Southoff, Library Media Specialist, Teaching and Learning.
[02:02:18] So once an initial review happens and the two individuals at the LEA review and think
[02:02:26] there's a plausible claim, the book is removed from student access.
[02:02:30] And the other thing I would add is that when we are talking about days, we might want to
[02:02:34] consider school days just because we have summer breaks and schools will be out of session
[02:02:39] and trying to pull people back in over a summer break might cause some concern there.
[02:02:44] So you're saying it's still removed during this time?
[02:02:47] Even if it's gone through that, I didn't remember that.
[02:02:50] I thought once it went through the initial process
[02:02:53] and the objective-sensitive materials process that it could be.
[02:02:57] If there's a plausible claim of sensitive materials,
[02:03:00] it's removed from student access.
[02:03:04] Okay.
[02:03:06] Okay.
[02:03:08] I wondered.
[02:03:09] Then let's make it 60 days.
[02:03:11] Just kidding.
[02:03:11] School days?
[02:03:13] Do you want to make it?
[02:03:14] Ah, she didn't even hear it.
[02:03:15] It wasn't even worth it.
[02:03:16] I heard you.
[02:03:17] I'm just trying to figure out what that
[02:03:23] does 30 school days make it enough
[02:03:26] because then that adds in weekends
[02:03:28] that's like
[02:03:29] I think 30 school days
[02:03:32] how long is it
[02:03:33] you've been seeing this
[02:03:35] how long is it taking to usually get that writing committee
[02:03:38] to meet
[02:03:39] this is their initial meeting on that
[02:03:41] this is the subjective materials piece
[02:03:44] I am not sure
[02:03:47] how long it is taking I hear just kind of bits and pieces from the field that it is difficult
[02:03:53] to pull a committee together parents are busy faculty staff are busy so I mean we don't want
[02:04:00] to drag it out forever and also being cognizant of the time schedules of everyone I wondered too
[02:04:08] I have just seen that ratedbooks.org is now free and open to the public is that a resource that
[02:04:14] our librarians and school districts can be made aware of so that they could more easily look at
[02:04:20] reviews and content in books so i believe our previous aag talked about rated books and i don't
[02:04:28] remember if it was in a committee meeting or if it was in an email thread just that um potentially
[02:04:33] that the perspectives that in which that this is not a you know industry standard um website that
[02:04:42] is reviewing books based on the way
[02:04:44] that professional industry reviews titles.
[02:04:46] And so they may be looking at titles in a different way
[02:04:50] through a different lens than what we would want a title
[02:04:54] to be reviewed at.
[02:04:55] Does anybody remember that conversation with our AAG?
[02:04:59] I don't remember.
[02:05:00] I think it was, if I remember right, it was that we, that they're maybe using a variety of resources and not, there was something, and I can't remember the specifics, but, you know, an individual person versus an organization or something like that.
[02:05:14] But that doesn't prohibit someone from using several sources to review their content, because, you know, you can go to several sources and get different, there's quite a few out there right now.
[02:05:25] And I think a lot of districts are aware of the different resources.
[02:05:29] have some on our page and there's some others out there it's an it's an easy
[02:05:33] thing to go and kind of just get a general feel and then go through from
[02:05:37] there if you have something you're interested in but I don't know where we
[02:05:43] are at 60 60 30 days yeah what do we I just feel like reasonable time needs a
[02:05:49] parameter and I'm I'm not sure what that parameter needs to be 60 school day or
[02:05:53] 30 school days something like that I like just leaving it as reasonable and
[02:06:03] just like saying like if that wasn't a reasonable time like six months didn't
[02:06:06] you know if if we do want to have accountability so yeah I think I prefer
[02:06:13] that but I like I don't mind 60 days I think that works okay but I think what
[02:06:23] if it was summertime and the review was triggered in June and nobody's in school so I think it needs
[02:06:29] to be school days well 60 school days I think 30 that's why I'm saying 30 school days allows for
[02:06:37] 50 to or so with weekends so okay I I think I'm gonna move that then not more than 30 school days
[02:06:50] is what I want to officially move.
[02:06:53] And then people can modify that if they want to.
[02:06:59] Any discussion to that?
[02:07:01] Further discussion?
[02:07:03] Okay.
[02:07:05] All right.
[02:07:06] So the motion before the committee
[02:07:07] is that the committee move that on,
[02:07:09] let's see, what do we got right up there?
[02:07:11] Make sure I'm doing it right.
[02:07:12] That the committee, that on page 12,
[02:07:15] the words, a reasonable time.
[02:07:18] Oh, no.
[02:07:19] Oh, I guess we could -- yeah, we would be replacing the reasonable time, right, just be -- okay.
[02:07:25] With not more than 30 school days.
[02:07:27] I just think we had to use that at the end, but that just makes sense to do that, so.
[02:07:32] Yep.
[02:07:33] Not more than 30 days.
[02:07:35] Yeah.
[02:07:36] So we're replacing within a reasonable time with not more than 30 school days.
[02:07:40] All those in favor?
[02:07:41] Aye.
[02:07:42] Aye?
[02:07:43] Aye.
[02:07:44] Nope.
[02:07:45] Okay.
[02:07:46] Board Member Green, where is your vote on that?
[02:07:47] Yes.
[02:07:48] Sorry.
[02:07:49] for in favor of that motion and board member rail opposed and I think I had
[02:07:57] one more okay so on page 18 it's under the appeals committee will evaluate the
[02:08:13] appeal based on the nature of the original claim and make and make may make
[02:08:19] a final recommendation by majority vote as follows and then under two it says
[02:08:23] for subjective sensitive material claims the appeals committee will evaluate
[02:08:27] whether the material taken as a whole or taken as a whole constitutes
[02:08:31] pornographic or indecent material under the statutory factor balancing standards
[02:08:37] or I'm adding this in there and this is just an addition after that or other
[02:08:44] criteria considered by the review committee because that's not the only
[02:08:49] reason why they may it could be pornography I mean not pornography it
[02:08:53] could be vulgarity it could be you know violence or just offensive to that
[02:08:59] particular community could be a variety of things yeah after factor balancing
[02:09:09] standards okay so okay or other criteria considered by the review committee
[02:09:39] I also wonder, in the sentence where it says the committee may make a determination that
[02:09:55] the material is subjective sensitive and the material will be removed,
[02:10:00] or is not subjective is that clear enough or should maybe that that's just
[02:10:07] grammatically or was found not subjective and remains or is it fine the
[02:10:13] way it is committee may make a determination material is subjective
[02:10:16] sensitive and the material will be removed or is not subjective you could
[02:10:22] the committee may make a determination that the material is not subjective is
[02:10:31] that is that your concern yeah it just yeah it is a little bit it's kind of
[02:10:37] clunky yeah yeah and then maybe it needs a comma or the committee may make a
[02:10:48] determination maybe it's a semicolon needed there because then that's a long
[02:10:53] sentence so when you just would you just need to switch the and in the or so
[02:11:07] termination that material is subjective material oh no no no and the material
[02:11:12] be removed or is not subject material can I see the amendment up there if we
[02:11:22] have maybe it just adds material at the end of subjective so it doesn't just sit
[02:11:27] there so I'm wondering member Cheryl if you would consider that added and or the
[02:11:40] the committee may make a determination or I'm just wondering I just want to make sure we're
[02:11:48] not leaving it up to any ambiguity and keeping it within the policy and so I don't want them to be
[02:11:55] like well I am a Boston Red Sox fan and this book is about the New York Yankees so I'm not putting
[02:12:02] this in the library right like I don't want to leave it up to people being able to pull things
[02:12:05] So if we add there, we can make a determination, you know, that it doesn't break code.
[02:12:12] It's something that's in the code or in the policy, not just, you know.
[02:12:16] But it is, just keep in mind, we're talking about other criteria that was considered by the review committee.
[02:12:23] This is the appeals committee.
[02:12:24] So they're going to be looking at what was considered by the review committee.
[02:12:29] And what's considered by the review committee is something that's in the policy or in the code.
[02:12:32] It is already in the policy.
[02:12:34] so are you trying to say review committee from the policy no no no no no i'm trying i just want
[02:12:39] to make sure that it's not like or anything else you might want to consider you know because just
[02:12:45] without saying says the review committee i i think in appeal you're only looking at what's already
[02:12:49] been taken place am i right am i right should be okay so does that do you think there needs to be
[02:12:56] clarity there because it is the review committee there's the review committee sending it to the
[02:13:01] appeal. Yeah, I'm wondering if her concern is that the review committee's considered something
[02:13:07] inappropriate. Is that your concern? No, I'm concerned that they could use some explanation
[02:13:14] or any explanation for removing the book, like, you know, a consideration that isn't something
[02:13:20] that's in the code to be... Yeah, yes, yeah. Yeah, but I mean, we do, we can spell it all out.
[02:13:29] No, I don't know that that's necessary.
[02:13:31] You have limited the Appeal Committee to considering whether or not the Review Committee reviewed the proper standards.
[02:13:42] Okay, so that is clear.
[02:13:43] They're not being allowed to add new criteria considering the facts.
[02:13:49] Oh, sorry.
[02:13:51] I'm not used to this.
[02:13:52] You're fine.
[02:13:54] Yeah, you're good.
[02:13:54] That's on.
[02:13:55] Okay.
[02:13:56] And then we'll come over in a second.
[02:13:59] Okay, go ahead, Devine, and then we'll circle back.
[02:14:02] So on page 14, on number 7, we're talking about the review committee here.
[02:14:10] And in the body of the paragraph, it says,
[02:14:13] in deciding whether the material constitutes subjective sensitive material,
[02:14:18] the committee must consider A, B, C, and A should be D.
[02:14:21] There's a mistake there, so I'll fix that.
[02:14:23] And D is that other criteria that you're talking about.
[02:14:27] And as we were talking about the appeal, I was just thinking about this.
[02:14:30] I understand what you're trying to do, but we say subjective sensitive material.
[02:14:36] And there's a legal definition of subjective sensitive material.
[02:14:40] And A, now new D, the number four item there, that is not part of the definition of subjective sensitive material.
[02:14:48] So I just want to make sure that everyone is aware of that.
[02:14:50] Yes, but I'm going to argue that you can take into consideration other things, and we're telling them that.
[02:14:57] the review committee and then when we get back here we're
[02:15:00] saying oh but only these things and not the other criteria in a date which they
[02:15:05] can take into consideration that other criteria under subjective not under
[02:15:10] objective so I I guess I'm wondering if we may need to clarify that because those
[02:15:16] items violence are not actually part of the definition of subjective sensitive
[02:15:22] material so we may need to clarify that they can determine something to be not
[02:15:27] subjective but it also may be something we don't want in the school library does
[02:15:32] that make sense like that D where it says violence pervasive vulgarity that's
[02:15:37] not part of the subjective sense I understand but they can take those into
[02:15:41] consideration yes and I just want when they get to the end not to say well if
[02:15:45] it doesn't meet these two yeah objectives subjective that the other
[02:15:50] consideration that was taken into consideration still could be looked at
[02:15:54] yes right as a possible yeah okay yeah okay so any other thoughts on that before
[02:16:05] we just just that this new a also has the animal abuse so we need obscene in
[02:16:10] there on 14 it'll include all right so okay so if we did or other criteria
[02:16:18] considered by the review committee so it's not going outside of what the
[02:16:21] review committee did are we still within parameters yes okay okay I just want to
[02:16:28] make sure that there isn't any ambiguity there yeah and that's why I threw the
[02:16:31] review committee in there it's not any other criteria it's got to be narrowly
[02:16:34] focused to what they've already considered because they're an appeal
[02:16:38] body so okay okay I'm like that's not in context for me okay so this is the this
[02:16:57] is what the motion would be on page 18 after statutory factor balancing standards
[02:17:04] that oh okay oh you put it in kind I see you put the whole thing in there okay so let's let me read
[02:17:20] this out and see for subjective sensitive material claims the appeals committee will evaluate whether
[02:17:26] the material taken as a whole constitutes pornographic or indecent material under the
[02:17:30] statutory factor balancing standards or criteria considered by the review committee.
[02:17:36] The committee may make a determination that the material is subjective sensitive material
[02:17:41] and the material will be removed, or the committee may make a determination that the
[02:17:46] material is not subjective.
[02:17:49] And the final determination of the appeals committee will be communicated to the requester
[02:17:53] and appropriate employees within 10 days of the determination.
[02:17:57] And just for the public, let me read the pieces added.
[02:18:00] So it would be adding in or criteria considered by the review committee
[02:18:03] and then just clarifying on the second to last sentence
[02:18:07] or the committee may make a determination that the material is not subjective.
[02:18:12] Okay, any additional discussion to that?
[02:18:17] Okay, all those in favor?
[02:18:20] Aye.
[02:18:20] Okay, that passes unanimously and that's all I had.
[02:18:26] So I don't know if others had any recommendations
[02:18:29] or if not, we can move the policy forward.
[02:18:33] Now I think we're ready for a motion.
[02:18:38] I did have one question real quick.
[02:18:41] Let me find it.
[02:18:43] It is on the objective where we took out the requirement
[02:18:47] for them to have the book as a whole.
[02:18:49] We said they may provide the book.
[02:18:59] sorry I don't think it oh okay you're on you're on page 10 thank you
[02:19:19] five it's oh right there yeah members of the room could receive materials to
[02:19:24] complete the review process including the following access to the it did say
[02:19:28] access to the complete work that includes the material being challenged
[02:19:31] and may provide access it was very valuable in the two committees that I've
[02:19:36] sat on and it was a total of about ten books to have the whole book to
[02:19:41] understand and I guess the difference here would be the objective versus the
[02:19:46] subjective material the fact that you're just saying it's in here it's out we
[02:19:51] don't need to see the whole book is that we know you could you could prove it
[02:19:54] You can prove provided access if you want, but it's--
[02:19:56] I guess I--
[02:19:57] So you're not requiring it.
[02:19:58] Yeah.
[02:20:00] if you've got the other materials available.
[02:20:04] It's up to you guys.
[02:20:07] It's like saying that you're reading the book without the context
[02:20:10] because you're only getting certain sections of it.
[02:20:12] It's the objective, not the subjective being the difference.
[02:20:20] It's up.
[02:20:21] If you want to make a motion, you can make a motion,
[02:20:23] but because it's the objective, I personally like where it's at.
[02:20:29] but it's less time-consuming but yeah have you sat on these committees I have
[02:20:36] done okay right now I will in this committee I'll leave it okay okay anybody
[02:20:48] want to make a motion for the document I think I have one more question okay okay
[02:21:03] so we added in there the violence pervasive vulgarity and self-harm
[02:21:12] right I'm trying to keep it narrowly into the law and so well I'm just
[02:21:24] wondering does maybe the AEG can help with this but I just am wondering if
[02:21:29] adding that violence pervasive vulgarity and self-harm I mean we've I
[02:21:33] have listened to all of the debates in the committee and on the floor for all
[02:21:38] of this and it the the interpretation and of those definitions is what gets complicated right
[02:21:45] that's why we've had 8,000 times of committee meetings where they're talking about these
[02:21:50] specific pieces so I'm wondering if adding that again sort of similar to my last one is
[02:21:58] could be confusing for our LEAs if they're trying to understand those pieces
[02:22:04] i mean what you're saying is they're not in the you're having a committee actually review this not
[02:22:11] an individual so i think you're having a committee that's actually having to just argue either this
[02:22:18] does or doesn't like violence is so broad right so and without like having that vetted through
[02:22:26] like we have with the law on what those definitions are well you could put we could put gratuitous
[02:22:30] excessive. I don't like putting things that are up to
[02:22:35] being interpreted in different ways because
[02:22:38] I think that's what we've seen causes a lot of confusion.
[02:22:45] Once again, it's a committee
[02:22:46] that's meeting. I understand that.
[02:22:54] Davina, do you have a suggestion in there?
[02:22:57] Well, I'm wondering, I kind of want to tag on and ask the
[02:23:00] AAG this so on that page 14 number 7 we're talking about subjective sensitive
[02:23:08] material and we added that line so if a committee is including violence
[02:23:14] pervasive vulgarity and/or self-harm as the criteria they're using to remove the
[02:23:20] title under a subjective sensitive material review does that then if they
[02:23:26] say yes we think it's subjective sensitive material because it has
[02:23:29] violence pervasive vulgarity land or self-harm which is not part of the
[02:23:32] definition in legislation with that which the law also requires that if it is
[02:23:37] determined to be subjective it has to be removed in the entire district but let's
[02:23:42] say you have a title that is self-harm in junior high and the committee says
[02:23:45] well we think it's subjective because it's violent vulgarity or self-harm and
[02:23:50] they want to move it to high school can they do that even though they were
[02:23:53] reviewing for subjective and the law says it has to be removed district-wide
[02:23:57] that's where I'm concerned is that just age appropriateness title you just said
[02:24:02] it was going up to your the recommendation could it if because the
[02:24:08] law says if it's determined to be subjective by a committee it's removed
[02:24:12] district-wide automatically include high school and that would include high
[02:24:16] school it probably should be a grade level removal if it's determined maybe
[02:24:22] not all the way what is the death where's the definition for subjective it's
[02:24:30] in 53 g 10 103 well part of it it starts there let's see and it says on
[02:24:39] number one H I I I subjective sensitive material means an instructional material
[02:24:50] THAT CONSTITUTES PORNOGRAPHIC OR INDECENT MATERIAL AS DEFINED IN SECTION 76 5C 208, MATERIAL THAT IS HARMFUL
[02:25:00] under section 76 5 C 101 material that is pornographic under section 76 5 C 101
[02:25:07] and includes certain fondling or other touching under subsection 76 5 C 207 1
[02:25:13] AID specifically. And can we look at 765C 101? So I could read it. Violence, vulgarity, yeah. So harmful to minors under 7C 101 says means that quality of any description or representation in whatsoever form of nudity
[02:25:43] sexual conduct, sexual excitement, sadomasochistic abuse, sexual conduct with an animal or animal
[02:25:49] crushing when an I, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of sex in minors.
[02:25:55] I.I. is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, and I.I.
[02:26:00] I, taken as a whole, does not have serious value for minors.
[02:26:06] That's what I'm...
[02:26:07] It does not have serious value for minors.
[02:26:09] I mean, that's what we're...
[02:26:10] Yeah, so do we need to specify...
[02:26:13] Um, where's the, where's the, where is, um, and it's saying serious value for minors based
[02:26:31] on nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, not anything else is the way.
[02:26:37] That's kind of what I'm reading there.
[02:26:43] so are we are we pulling the my mics on are we are we pulling the the reference
[02:27:02] to violence how are we grounding is that grounded in statute and do we have a way
[02:27:10] to I mean obviously we're in a in a in a rule we're sort of condensing this very
[02:27:16] you know 76 5 c 10 is gigantic that's a huge statute with a lot of stuff in it
[02:27:26] and and clearly anything there you know material that includes this stuff could
[02:27:32] be subjective where's violence coming from and how do we ground that in
[02:27:38] statute that was sort of my exact question i was like if we put this in does it lead people to have
[02:27:44] different interpretations and we've added or other sensitive content so we're not saying it's
[02:27:51] sensitive material we're saying other sensitive content yeah but it says or other sensitive
[02:27:56] contact like violence pervasive vulgarity animal abuse as reference when we say as reference okay
[02:28:02] there's no comma there. That's to animal abuse. Okay, so elsewhere in the statute do we have
[02:28:10] discussion of violence and how it relates to this definition of subjective?
[02:28:20] It's not in 101. The only thing in 101 is the animal crushing. Right, right, right.
[02:28:26] not sure if i'm answering a question or i guess i yeah
[02:28:40] i think the question was violence pervasive vulgarity self-harm they're not grounded in code
[02:28:50] i wouldn't
[02:28:56] you don't have to answer today yeah i mean we can here's the thing we're kind of putting you
[02:29:00] on the spot and it would be probably good to do a more thorough look through a variety of things
[02:29:04] only because if you're saying take violence out what we're saying is we're not making that part of
[02:29:10] our book you know what i mean but in doing that what we're also saying is that you know we're just
[02:29:18] opening that up and i think we're opening ourself up for probably more laws for that too when in
[02:29:23] essence a district could decide that those pieces are sensitive for students
[02:29:28] yeah so I guess I just want to pick I want to look carefully at the definition
[02:29:33] of sensitive and and see if that if that can be you know these other turn I mean
[02:29:40] obviously the animal abuse that you've you're grounded there yeah and you're
[02:29:44] specifically referencing in your role these other things how do we how do we
[02:29:51] use them
[02:29:51] now
[02:29:51] you know
[02:29:52] there is
[02:29:52] weird stuff
[02:29:53] in here
[02:29:53] like
[02:29:54] you know
[02:29:56] flagellation
[02:29:58] or torture
[02:29:59] by or upon a
[02:30:00] person who is nude or clad in undergarments uh a mask i mean you know that's oddly specific um and
[02:30:07] but violence is a such a broad term i'm not sure uh how to how to provide guidance
[02:30:18] well and there's so many instances of in war books and things in history where violence
[02:30:24] is teaching a lesson like you just have to learn about it because it's part of history
[02:30:28] what's the differentiation here that would set it apart and i would almost argue that's why you put
[02:30:35] a group of parents together and educators in your community who can that's the that's the
[02:30:40] importance of that committee versus us saying so right i understand yeah well let's do let's do
[02:30:50] this we can get some additional feedback in between now and our next right just kind of like
[02:30:55] what we did well i was going to say part of the reason i think that was why we had age
[02:30:59] appropriateness in there was because i you know i understand there is no definition of age
[02:31:05] appropriate that i know but here's here's my thing i guess what and i can take this to full
[02:31:10] board and we can have the discussion there that's fine but my my when we spent a lot of time
[02:31:15] on the rule i think what what i took from that was that anything that is ambiguous or a little
[02:31:23] bit vague or can be interpreted in some different way by a different group or someone within that
[02:31:28] parent group, I like to keep it really clear and within the law that's been vetted so much to make
[02:31:34] sure that those definitions are clear. So that's why I don't like adding anything that's beyond the
[02:31:40] code or the definitions that we have. Age appropriateness is not in the code. I'm not
[02:31:44] arguing about age appropriateness. I'm just saying that's probably why we have that in there. But
[02:31:48] But my point is that I don't want to, even in a parent group or whatever the review committee looks like,
[02:31:55] that they're sitting there saying, well, I think this is violent.
[02:31:57] Well, I don't.
[02:31:58] But in other instances, they're able to say, we have a definition of this being X, Y, and Z.
[02:32:05] And so that's why I just, it's not that I want violent books in children's hands that shouldn't have it.
[02:32:12] I'm just saying it causes some confusion potentially because of the ambiguity.
[02:32:17] was one thing very nice sitting on those committees we had to have pre-training
[02:32:20] that was done and the entire training was based on code here's the code here's
[02:32:25] what it says here's the code here's what it says so it's very clear when you open
[02:32:29] those books and you start reading you're like dead-on this is what the code says
[02:32:33] this is out and then when I had a parent screaming at me because I voted to
[02:32:37] remove a book I was like well this is the law we're obeying the law I had
[02:32:43] something to fall back on and I did I okay whatever you whatever this body
[02:32:48] wants to do I just think we're now opening it up for things that I think
[02:32:52] we're gonna see more more code next year and stuff but yes oh and I would just
[02:32:56] add it I agree a hundred percent a committee comes together can evaluate a
[02:33:00] book for whatever I was just concerned about lumping that in with this
[02:33:05] objective because it adds requirements that we may not really intend to do with
[02:33:12] book that has some violence in it that was my concern there and then that's
[02:33:17] where that when I was thinking about this model policy I'm thinking what is
[02:33:20] what schools use which is they do look at age appropriateness they look at
[02:33:23] violence they look at and they evaluate that but we don't want it to be under
[02:33:27] the requirements of sensitive materials because it will have an it will have an
[02:33:32] unintended consequence for our students accessing you know literature it really
[02:33:37] will if we're thinking about like the war books and and things like that you
[02:33:40] know biographies and that we want our high school students to be able to access so um that's just my
[02:33:46] yeah and i wasn't thinking of those books that's why once again that's why you have a right that
[02:33:51] committee because there are books out there that are extremely violent that have nothing to do with
[02:33:56] war or you know are derogatory towards the human body so is it covered already in the objective
[02:34:03] do you think
[02:34:04] violence no
[02:34:06] not under the objective
[02:34:08] so maybe we'll have to put human crushing
[02:34:10] under there
[02:34:11] I'll just make the amendment and we can vote on it
[02:34:14] and move on
[02:34:15] so on
[02:34:16] A D
[02:34:19] after death
[02:34:21] A D A slash D
[02:34:23] I just I think I just
[02:34:25] I sent you an amendment
[02:34:27] Leah if you have it I don't know if you have it there
[02:34:29] to change
[02:34:31] the language in A
[02:34:33] page 14, to may consider other criteria found to be harmful to minors such as animal abuse
[02:34:44] as referenced in section 76.5C.101.
[02:34:47] So you're just changing to other criteria harmful to minors?
[02:35:00] may consider other criteria harmful to minors such as I'm just like taking out
[02:35:04] those pieces that we don't have yes yeah and change that to obscene animal
[02:35:12] you might it doesn't that just fall under the law so you can just move that
[02:35:16] I you wouldn't want to include that you would just put other criteria harmful to
[02:35:20] minors as reference which is only what you went so now you've taken out the
[02:35:28] language you've taken out the violence you've taken out self-harm yes as a
[02:35:34] consideration yes so then maybe it should just say may consider other
[02:35:37] criteria found to be harmful as referenced in section 76 5c 101 so you
[02:35:44] can just take out harmful to minors yep as reference yet just take that whole
[02:35:56] highlighted part out I'd like additional information before I would even if we
[02:36:03] had to have two sections one that was specific to sensitive materials and then
[02:36:09] one that was specific to well subjective sensitive materials right and objective
[02:36:14] but then one that was harmful to minor section or something well the
[02:36:19] interesting thing about referring back to the code is that it is patently
[02:36:22] offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with
[02:36:26] respect to what is suitable material for minors so they can go back and they can
[02:36:31] read this book and instead of us calling out things that are not
[02:36:35] statically based they look at this and they can use that as a fallback is that
[02:36:41] this is patently offensive when you took a persuasive vulgarity is patently
[02:36:46] offensive but creating a term that is not statically based opens up to harm
[02:36:53] we're here you're opening it to we're not limiting it to words that we've
[02:36:57] decided that are incorrect we're putting it back to code that says if this group
[02:37:02] finds this book patently offensive whatever that may be not our simple
[02:37:07] violence vulgarity we're putting it back into the hands of the community to say
[02:37:13] in our community this is what we find patently offensive and it's based on
[02:37:17] code. I don't, I'm going to have to consider. Yeah. And then I'm not ready to make a motion.
[02:37:23] Can I adjust that? So, well, I'll make the motion now. So it's on there and I have it for next time.
[02:37:28] And then, yeah. And then also on page seven for a, so the language is, I don't know if you can put
[02:37:38] on page 14 and page 7
[02:37:40] for A, because it references it
[02:37:42] in the same way, on 7
[02:37:43] for A.
[02:37:47] It's the same thing, so it's just
[02:37:48] changing the language in both places to
[02:37:50] be the same, consistent.
[02:38:04] Yeah.
[02:38:06] To be amended to up to read. Yeah, that's perfect
[02:38:17] And for clarity on what you're what you'd like the AG to look at
[02:38:23] We're assessing
[02:38:28] Provisions related to whether we can actually
[02:38:31] Indicate that vulgarity
[02:38:33] Could be one of those things violence pervasive. Yeah
[02:38:36] and self-harm yes the appropriateness of including them yeah and the definition
[02:38:40] of subjective well or even how those could be considered in here if it's not
[02:38:46] under that specific definition could those be considered under another like
[02:38:50] an ABC kind of a thing and we are saying may not shall I feel like committee
[02:38:57] members in different communities would be okay with it the way it is I don't
[02:39:04] I'd like to move to amend. I would like to add after minors and is patently
[02:39:13] offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community. That can be friendly.
[02:39:21] Patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community.
[02:39:34] That's fine.
[02:39:35] Patently prevailing.
[02:39:37] I did.
[02:39:37] Okay.
[02:39:39] Is that going after all of these?
[02:39:42] That's after minors and before as referenced.
[02:39:47] It all comes from code.
[02:39:53] Yeah, I mean, we can put the Miller test in.
[02:39:55] That's what that, in essence, is, which is why we ended up with more laws.
[02:40:00] but you know it yeah sure that is what I think that is what it says in there yeah
[02:40:09] - Yeah, they put the Miller test in.
[02:40:11] - And then it's all good.
[02:40:21] - Yes?
[02:40:26] - Communities, community.
[02:40:28] - We're all trying our best here, everybody.
[02:40:30] - Including my sculpture.
[02:40:39] are you is that it is that what you want just really quickly I think we're going
[02:40:44] to need to move the code section up to be after minors does that make sense
[02:40:48] because otherwise we're saying that the code is saying what the community finds
[02:40:52] is that so right now as it currently reads it's saying that we the standards
[02:40:57] for the adult community is being referenced in that section this would
[02:41:01] need to stay here that line is from code so maybe put it at the beginning as long
[02:41:07] as it's in code it can say that I just wanted to make sure that that is covered
[02:41:10] then we're fine as long as it's in code and they can find it with that
[02:41:17] reference that's fine this is a friendly you don't need to thank you to a I'm fine
[02:41:25] with that amendment to the motion so that as referenced in that code so it's
[02:41:36] only patently of offensive if it's referenced in that code just help me and
[02:41:41] make sure that I am reading that correctly it's only if it's referenced in
[02:41:44] that code would it be considered offensive that's what it sounds like so
[02:41:50] then it is it we've just narrowed the scope once again right so yeah I'm not
[02:41:57] trying to narrow the scope I'm actually trying to say that the community gets to
[02:42:01] determine what is I know but I'm just making sure that the code does say no
[02:42:12] that's fine but I'm looking at is this 76 5c 101 reference which is an
[02:42:20] additional basis yeah but otherwise it's saying if only if it means it's
[02:42:24] offensive these things in that code that section instead of offensive to that it
[02:42:28] should be in or, and not in, not in, I think there needs to be after adult community, comma, or as.
[02:42:39] So not and here, keep this and and move the or.
[02:42:44] And is passed.
[02:42:44] Well, now I'm not, now I'm messing with someone's amendment, so I don't want to, I don't want to necessarily do that.
[02:42:49] No, that works.
[02:42:50] That works.
[02:42:50] Or is referenced.
[02:42:52] Yes.
[02:42:58] Okay. So the motion is by Board Member Rill, is that on page number 14, subsection 7D, and on page number 7, subsection 4A, be amended to read, may consider other criteria found to be harmful to minors and is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, or is referenced in section 76.5C101.
[02:43:24] That's the motion. Any discussion to that? Additional discussion or thoughts?
[02:43:28] okay I'm personally I'm just gonna still I'm holding this out there I need to do
[02:43:36] a little bit more research before I want to move this forward to make sure that
[02:43:39] it's not just nearing the scope so much so and I'd love a little additional
[02:43:46] feedback from the AG on you know how the impacts or even if we moved another
[02:43:51] section what that would look like but any other comments okay all those in
[02:43:57] favor aye all those opposed aye no no no okay that fails but i think would you mind i'd like just a
[02:44:09] different i mean a full analysis maybe of even this amendment here because it may hit the spot
[02:44:14] where we want it um i just want to make sure that that's where it's at before move that forward so
[02:44:23] okay um that fails uh the fours were board member rail and board member um i almost said green
[02:44:32] board member wood and our four and any other any other discussion
[02:44:42] okay looking for a motion to move it forward okay i will move that the committee
[02:44:48] repeal the 2022 model policy and adopt the 2026 model policy draft 3 as amended on first
[02:44:56] reading and forward to the board for approval on second and final reading.
[02:45:00] Okay, any additional discussion to that motion?
[02:45:05] Okay, the motion before the committee is that the committee repeal the 2022 model policy
[02:45:13] and adopt the 2026 model policy draft three on first reading
[02:45:16] and forward to the board for approval on second and final reading.
[02:45:19] As amended.
[02:45:21] Sorry, as amended.
[02:45:22] All those in favor?
[02:45:24] Aye.
[02:45:24] Aye.
[02:45:26] Aye.
[02:45:27] Okay, that passes unanimously.
[02:45:29] And we are, okay, we've got USEEP and then the study, the audit timeline.
[02:45:43] Oh, oh, we've got to do that.
[02:45:45] We've got to do that first.
[02:45:46] Yeah, sorry, sorry, sorry.
[02:45:48] Someone's got to keep me on track here.
[02:45:49] Okay, we're going to try to get through these pretty quick.
[02:45:53] Do you want to go ahead and talk about that?
[02:45:55] Thank you.
[02:45:56] I would have missed that completely.
[02:45:59] it is it is do you want to share just when board member green had asked last time to bring back
[02:46:06] some information on timeline would you mind sharing that um yeah so before we dive into this specific
[02:46:12] timeline um i want to just share an important clarification from the internal audit department
[02:46:16] regarding the language of the motion um to align with board rule r277 100-100 and protect the
[02:46:24] technical definition of a formal audit and they've asked us to adjust the term
[02:46:29] to a monitoring review instead of audit unless we wanted to have the internal
[02:46:34] audit team do that themselves so so just broke broke down the timeline into four
[02:46:47] different phases a physical phase the supply chain and procurement of
[02:46:52] materials and then compliance and training so what librarians and
[02:46:57] districts provide for training or get and provide for training and then the
[02:47:02] final phase would just be the synthesis and evaluation of that of all of that
[02:47:07] collection data collection and I don't believe any of the the time needed by the
[02:47:16] the districts and LEAs to provide input would be at the librarian level. I think the majority,
[02:47:22] unless it's like a charter school who may not have a district person or a charter school director who
[02:47:27] has that information. But I also narrowed phase one, the fiscal analysis, and phase two to just
[02:47:34] 12 districts and three charters as a random sampling instead of trying to get all of that
[02:47:38] information from all 41 just to limit the time because this already was an extensive amount of
[02:47:44] time there so but we for compliance and training I think it'll be a lot easier
[02:47:49] to get all of that information from all of the districts and charters okay can
[02:47:55] ask a question yeah go ahead if we were to pursue something that like this would
[02:48:00] this be an appropriate use of discretionary funds I good question
[02:48:05] because I already asked that I think this would be we would we could I was
[02:48:11] thinking because i was thinking there's a lot of time for for staff here is that we could ask for
[02:48:15] additional funding to help with that that we already you know so there's a someone that we
[02:48:21] could either contract with or hire on is a you know to assist with this so are you calling a
[02:48:28] friend okay i didn't know if you would call a friend on this you're good you're good so i think
[02:48:35] we could i think we could i don't know if that piece needs to go to the full board and we can
[02:48:39] start and then if we get additional funding does that make sense yeah i i think i could only support
[02:48:46] this if we knew that there was funding as as i mean as many staff that we've had to lose over
[02:48:52] time with with the different changes in code that took funding away i don't know that our
[02:48:58] i don't believe and i guess i could not approve this without feedback from our our superintendency
[02:49:05] that there and I guess maybe superintendent or he's could speak to
[02:49:10] this is that do we have capacity and funding to do this to even start this on
[02:49:15] our own and is there enough of a flag or reason to do a comprehensive audit of
[02:49:23] every school district monitoring okay I don't know who yeah sure so this is very
[02:49:37] comprehensive of monitoring review and it would take a lot of capacity and you
[02:49:48] You can see on the summary table the number of hours that it would take of hours, which
[02:49:56] is one thing, but the number of LEA hours.
[02:50:00] that it would take as well to be able to implement so I mean we can certainly
[02:50:07] work out the the details related to our capacity but it would be very beneficial
[02:50:14] as chair Earl and I talked about previously to to bring in some capacity
[02:50:21] through professional services agreement what we didn't talk about though chair
[02:50:26] is that that LEA the total number of LEA hours that would be required okay
[02:50:37] that's a lot of capacity for them as well and if we do something like this is
[02:50:42] there a way to help use our discretionary funds to support LEAs or is
[02:50:47] there kind of a line between oh as Megan mentioned earlier I mean we have a
[02:50:51] versus participant support cost policy so if leas if people outside of the agency are doing work for
[02:51:00] us we do have a policy about how we can compensate them for that they have to be available obviously
[02:51:09] but we do have a policy okay board member green do you want to weigh in a little bit kind of give us
[02:51:16] Some thoughts?
[02:51:25] You might be muted if you're talking because we're not hearing you.
[02:51:28] Thank you.
[02:51:29] Sorry about that.
[02:51:31] Yeah, first I just wanted to tell you thank you for what is in front of us.
[02:51:35] I know that this is a very heavy lift.
[02:51:39] It's actually something that I've been following for a long time.
[02:51:43] And it's an area that is being missed in this conversation in a very big way.
[02:51:49] My fear is that if we don't understand what is in front of us,
[02:51:56] we will continue to see laws come forward that I've argued in a positive way
[02:52:04] that are reactionary instead of maybe fully understanding the dynamic that exists
[02:52:11] and the relationship that exists with um the the library industry and the public education system
[02:52:20] so that's why i i believe 100 that this is important that we we understand what this
[02:52:27] looks like now at a state level um and then moving forward from that i believe that we will see
[02:52:34] a more proactive
[02:52:37] and
[02:52:37] approach to
[02:52:40] how our libraries are curated
[02:52:42] so I am
[02:52:44] in support of moving
[02:52:46] forward recognizing that this
[02:52:48] does take time and
[02:52:50] it will cost money
[02:52:53] but it is of high
[02:52:54] benefit to I think
[02:52:56] everyone around
[02:52:58] this subject
[02:52:59] so if we could move forward
[02:53:02] um with this that would be fantastic um and maybe we make maybe we start with phase one
[02:53:12] and then we can begin the process of working out um some other logistics that way we can
[02:53:22] we can get going on this you know time is of the essence could i just ask um a question
[02:53:29] to divina because i'm looking at this and i think the goals are really good to to stop at the front
[02:53:37] end the vendors and the booksellers from from sending materials to our libraries that do not
[02:53:44] meet our bright line rules so that we're not constantly playing defense and having parents
[02:53:49] have the burden of finding books and go through the review process but if we could have does it
[02:53:55] require this divina or could we have a policy in place now or do we that says like you can't
[02:54:03] be bringing books in that don't align with utah law so we don't have a policy um and we don't have
[02:54:12] legislation that speaks to that and i think it was i think board member britton it was you last
[02:54:18] time that mentioned the texas law which has been struck down by the supreme court or the
[02:54:24] the Texas Supreme Court as non-constitutional. So I don't know. That makes me a little hesitant
[02:54:33] without some legal counsel and guidance to what we would, like what a policy might look like or
[02:54:39] a rule. And I think in talking with Board Member Green, and I kind of agree with this,
[02:54:46] it's understanding how the system works, the book system works. And I think that's kind of the
[02:54:53] the question here how it rolls out how things come in how they move forward what's you know
[02:55:00] anyways um so i don't think this was more intensive than i had envisioned but maybe that that's okay
[02:55:07] because that's why i was like who wrote this who's someone's really which i thought was great i was
[02:55:12] like debbie davis must have written this so that's that's a compliment and i was impressed
[02:55:16] divina so but i wondered i'm ready to be on the auditing team anytime debbie asks
[02:55:23] well i was impressed by it that's right so anyways go ahead board member green
[02:55:27] Well, and the thing really that is super important probably is phase one and phase two.
[02:55:34] We have to understand the contracts that exist.
[02:55:36] We have to understand the funding.
[02:55:38] We have to understand the supply chain and procurement.
[02:55:42] And I've tried to explain that and highlight that.
[02:55:46] I think we've done a pretty good job here on the key focus areas.
[02:55:51] And we just have to understand the acquisition pipeline.
[02:55:56] We have to identify if there are recurring sources of problematic material curation.
[02:56:01] We have to improve the procurement safeguards.
[02:56:06] And then we just have to strengthen our communication with vendors and organizations.
[02:56:09] And we need to understand that through just the vendor transparency and also the industry influences.
[02:56:19] The argument has been raised also that what is available drives the availability of what is actually purchased.
[02:56:29] And so I also want to understand the primary organizations and the vendors that supply, that recommend, that curate, that market, or distribute the materials to the Utah Public School libraries.
[02:56:43] And then I'd like to procure a pathway through which those library materials move from the publisher to the school library, including the roles of the publishers, the distributors, the review organizations, the professional associations, and the collection development services.
[02:57:00] and I know that this is a lot but to understand this is um pivotal in the relationships it's one
[02:57:10] of the biggest relationships that exists in you know industry versus uh public education
[02:57:17] outside of curriculum procurement um I also am aware of possible more legislation coming forward
[02:57:24] where the online procurement of books and material and curriculums,
[02:57:31] what can happen in that realm is, and what is happening in that realm,
[02:57:34] you have your product number.
[02:57:39] And in this, I'm going to go extreme here, but this is actually happening,
[02:57:44] where you can access drugs through some of these online sources.
[02:57:50] well that's flagged it's taken off a new uh number is assigned to that and that item is
[02:57:59] actually back online within 24 hours we and we have documented you know proof of that so
[02:58:06] it is a system within itself and i think we have an obligation to understand what it is that we're
[02:58:13] working with especially with the moving forward of technology um vendors play a huge part
[02:58:18] organizations play a huge part and i want us to understand what those relationships look like
[02:58:23] so if we need to i think probably the most productive thing now is to understand if funding
[02:58:29] is needed um and how we go about moving forward because i don't want this to be delayed i'd like
[02:58:39] to at least have some kind of action that we can start with and then continue to develop and work
[02:58:46] out the details. So Board Member Green, we're wondering to move this forward, and then we kind
[02:58:51] of looked at some of the costs that would be associated with this. We're thinking we would ask
[02:58:57] at the board meeting, unless we had, if we had a board meeting in July, and I'm not suggesting that,
[02:59:02] then it could be on that agenda, but $50,000 to $60,000 from our discretionary funds, and there's
[02:59:09] a variety of places that could come. That would cover some of the costs for staffing, for
[02:59:15] districts or what did we call that it's not a reimbursement it would be just
[02:59:21] support costs that's yeah support cost and then it would also be able to send
[02:59:26] someone maybe on a contractual basis to to work with our staff to maybe do some
[02:59:32] of this work does that sound that's good so we could move this forward and then
[02:59:38] we can have that discussion say at our next board meeting in august yes okay and what what could we
[02:59:46] expect um like is is there anything that's reasonable that we could get started in the
[02:59:52] meantime i don't know what davina maybe you could talk to that because i don't know times and and
[03:00:00] There may be parts of this that could be begun.
[03:00:02] I just don't have that information.
[03:00:04] I'm just looking through here.
[03:00:08] I mean, before our next meeting in August,
[03:00:15] and I guess without any funding.
[03:00:17] Yeah, can I make a suggestion?
[03:00:18] Would you maybe meet with Leah or whoever is your supervisor
[03:00:25] and maybe send us just the committee just some things that you could initially get going so that
[03:00:32] you're working on your I don't know what your schedules are and what your commitments are right
[03:00:36] now whether they're less or more because school's out and then maybe give us an initial I can we can
[03:00:42] begin these processes prior to adequate you know what I mean fully funding so does that sound
[03:00:48] reasonable yeah does that sound reasonable um the other thing would it be helpful if i
[03:00:54] like i've been trying to research you know um organization influences and and how this other
[03:01:03] realm works i've come across a list of organizations that exist and are utilized and and help you know
[03:01:11] make our public libraries functional so you've got the school library journal you've got the book
[03:01:16] list, Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, National Council of Teachers of English, International
[03:01:21] Society for Technology and Education. Some major vendors and distributors are Follett Content
[03:01:28] Solutions. You have Mackin Educational Resources, Permabound Books, Junior Library Guild, Ingram
[03:01:34] Content Group, Baker and Taylor. And then you've got the others like Scholastic Penguin, Harper
[03:01:40] and Collins, McMillan, Simon and... Would it be helpful if I send those to you? Because
[03:01:46] those are that's like the specific lane i'm looking to see like what what those relationships
[03:01:52] look like um and i don't know if you've if you've rolled that into the supply chain and procurement
[03:01:59] part of of what you've given us um and i'm asking because if i need to make a motion now i can
[03:02:06] if we're flexible on that i'm more than happy to share what i've
[03:02:10] personally been collecting and researching what what would be best
[03:02:15] i'm always open to more information so please share i'm very familiar with all of those names
[03:02:23] that you mentioned as well so okay i i don't know how the committee feels if if i need to
[03:02:29] put that into any of you know maybe board member green when you send something for it maybe just
[03:02:37] send it to the committee too does that make sense so that we're in the loop yeah absolutely and and
[03:02:43] if we if we just want to look at phase two the distribution center technical processing
[03:02:48] so it says investigating vendor provided shelf ready services that's a really really big one
[03:02:54] also a person that i'd spoken with had mentioned that they that some of the uh these organizations
[03:03:03] do create shelf ready packages and you know they for ten ten thousand dollars you you get this many
[03:03:10] books and and we already have it listed and you can just kind of browse through that click order
[03:03:16] and it just shows up so there there are ways that that our libraries are being stocked with books
[03:03:22] and again that's just another level that i would love to under to really understand how the industry
[03:03:27] is influencing what is what and how those books are showing up in our libraries so i will go ahead
[03:03:35] and put that together and i will send that out to the committee if if that is okay with you
[03:03:40] okay yeah that's fine if you'll send that on so okay so i think the motion and i just was going
[03:03:49] to comment um before we vote i i i appreciate this and thank you for putting this work together
[03:03:54] and i think that this is something that could be really interesting and useful
[03:03:59] um for us for sure i just i look at the bigger picture of you know the changes in laws that have
[03:04:09] come out the multiple laws that have come out the changes in the sense of material laws
[03:04:13] and i just keep going back to our librarians and i you know it's it's hard for me to
[03:04:21] i don't feel like i feel like we don't have the time and resources for this kind of work
[03:04:26] and i also just don't feel like it's necessary because i feel like
[03:04:30] those librarians are are first of all because we have already so many procurement laws and rules
[03:04:39] and policies in place as a state.
[03:04:41] Like, I always joke when I hire someone
[03:04:43] that's from the public sector
[03:04:44] and they come to work with me at the college,
[03:04:47] I'm like, well, there's about 10,000 things
[03:04:49] we need to do before you get that lunch bought
[03:04:51] for the meeting, right?
[03:04:52] Because we work for the state
[03:04:53] and it's taxpayer dollars
[03:04:53] and it's very important to make sure
[03:04:55] that our dollars are used wisely
[03:04:56] and that there's accountability.
[03:04:58] And so the work that...
[03:05:00] can be done here could be really interesting but I just I don't think we have the capacity and it's
[03:05:05] hard for me to put this um on even having been on audit uh for the last four years the work that it
[03:05:13] takes for these LEAs to do this it's just it's hard for me to support it because I just don't
[03:05:17] think that at this time they have the capacity and our LEAs have the capacity and I you know I just
[03:05:22] trust our librarians that they're procuring um the right kinds of books but I totally understand
[03:05:28] where you're coming for a member green and i think this is really thoughtful and um but i just
[03:05:32] from a big picture perspective i can't support it so no i i appreciate that feedback if i can respond
[03:05:39] um i know like it it really is it's so big and i'm just thinking of we're what at 32 books and
[03:05:47] all the effort that it takes for all of these committees all from the state from the top all
[03:05:51] the way to the bottom left right and center that that have this burden placed on them i think the
[03:05:57] main goal is a focus on communicating just clear procurement expectations and legal compliance
[03:06:04] requirements to the vendors and organizations that do business within Utah schools. And so
[03:06:10] to understand and be able to communicate that clearly, I think will save everybody a lot of
[03:06:15] time in the future. I'm not seeing it go away. I feel like things are getting better. And this
[03:06:22] would just streamline maybe better communication for that and i think just one more thing um
[03:06:32] you know that messaging that if you wish to market recommend curate or sell materials to
[03:06:38] the utah public schools just being able to understand utah's legal standards and provide
[03:06:43] tools that help schools comply with those and i think we developed that we're going to be in a
[03:06:48] really great place.
[03:06:51] Okay, we're just looking at some technical questions here.
[03:06:56] Did we get anything resolved?
[03:07:01] Well, you missed Member Green and I's great discussion.
[03:07:03] No, I heard all your discussion, which it was great.
[03:07:08] It's true.
[03:07:10] Just a second.
[03:07:12] We're just figuring something out here.
[03:07:18] okay so we might just set this because we have one more item to go to we're gonna set this aside
[03:07:27] for just a second we're trying to make sure how we can ask because it wasn't cited does that make
[03:07:33] sense so it's it's it was it within the backup yeah jenny yeah what if to your point about asking
[03:07:41] leadership about it but ask leadership to send it to law and licensing in July oh okay so law and
[03:07:49] licensing is having a July meeting so we can we can request leadership just so that we can make
[03:07:58] sure it's an action item that the problem we're running into is it's not although it's it wasn't
[03:08:04] noticed although we don't adhere to public comment yeah yeah okay okay so we've we'll have to see if
[03:08:11] this can be on the agenda. Let's get what we want to go on
[03:08:14] and request that maybe leadership consider putting this on law and licensing so that
[03:08:19] it can actually have a vote behind it. So I think it would be
[03:08:23] moving forward, the recommended
[03:08:26] policy consideration, the monitoring. What did we title
[03:08:31] it? How did we
[03:08:35] title it? Give me a second.
[03:08:36] the school library monitoring timeline yes so i guess board member green do you want to make that
[03:08:44] motion and then just ask that we consider um using 50 to 60 thousand dollars of discretionary funds
[03:08:53] and then we can hammer that out a little bit more with um scott jones and make sure we've got the
[03:08:59] right amount there and why don't you just do 60 000 and then what we'll do is if
[03:09:06] we can request that is amended if it changes okay and um and just for clarification last month's
[03:09:15] meeting where that motion was made why was that bumped underneath was it because it fell
[03:09:21] underneath the sensitive materials or should it have been its own agenda items because the motion
[03:09:27] was made yeah it was put under sensitive materials but it wasn't cited as a sec as a separate action
[03:09:35] item as far as requesting like funding for it?
[03:09:45] Does that make sense?
[03:09:46] - Yeah.
[03:09:47] - I'm sorry, that was an oversight probably on my part,
[03:09:52] not intentional, but...
[03:09:55] - Okay, so I would move that we...
[03:10:00] We move the comprehensive school library monitoring timeline forward to law and licensing's July meeting, requesting $60,000 in funding.
[03:10:18] From discretionary funds?
[03:10:20] From discretionary funds.
[03:10:26] Okay.
[03:10:27] and then do do i need to clarify and to move forward to full board in the august
[03:10:32] 2026 meeting yeah i think that would be appropriate yeah that would work
[03:10:40] okay so the any well let me read it and then if there's any discussion
[03:10:46] uh yeah after library we need the word monitoring if you don't mind
[03:10:55] okay so let me read it and if we need to adjust anything we can um that the committee asked board
[03:11:03] leadership to add the comprehensive school library monitoring timeline to the july
[03:11:07] lawn licensing committee meeting requesting 60 000 from the discretionary funds and to move the
[03:11:15] timeline forward to the full board meeting in august okay all those in favor aye aye all those
[03:11:24] opposed okay board member real is in opposition there were four for this so
[03:11:30] okay and we have one more item it's our what is it our yep you seep
[03:11:38] recommendations so do we have someone to present that you are presenting okay
[03:11:48] all right let's write it quick so people can get some lunch here thank you
[03:11:52] Leo Voorhees deputy superintendent so as you know the Utah special education
[03:11:56] advisory panel is one of your advisory committees and 50% of the members are
[03:12:04] parents or of individuals with disabilities or individuals with
[03:12:08] disabilities so this year they have been they determined at the beginning of the
[03:12:14] school year that they have two priorities that they wanted to look in
[03:12:19] in-depth at and possibly make recommendations to the board regarding.
[03:12:24] So the first in-depth priority was special education teacher recruitment and retention.
[03:12:33] They spent a couple meetings reviewing all of the CACTUS data that we have about special
[03:12:41] education teachers and the multiple Utah Education Policy Center studies that they have done for us
[03:12:49] related to special education teacher satisfaction, workload, pre-service experiences,
[03:12:58] and then reviewed our Apple SPED program in depth.
[03:13:03] After all of that review and discussion,
[03:13:07] they are bringing forward three recommendations for you to receive
[03:13:11] using Board Member Davis's word yesterday.
[03:13:16] The motion says accept,
[03:13:18] but accept does not mean that you will implement necessarily.
[03:13:22] It means that you're receiving the recommendations.
[03:13:27] So the first one, and there's context for each, but I won't read that.
[03:13:31] The first recommendation is that UCP recommends that the USBE develop an online toolkit for school administrators
[03:13:39] to better understand the needs of and ability to support special educators.
[03:13:44] And the reason they made that recommendation is because in all of that research,
[03:13:48] The number one thing that improves or that's correlated with retention is administrator support.
[03:13:57] So that was recommendation one.
[03:13:59] Recommendation two is that UC recommends that the USBE budget IDEA funds for a competitive grant to LEAs
[03:14:09] to propose and implement innovative approaches to decrease the paperwork burden
[03:14:14] special education teachers experience when compliantly implementing the IDEA.
[03:14:20] And the reason for that recommendation is because the paperwork burden
[03:14:24] was their least favorite part of being a special ed teacher,
[03:14:28] according to all of that research.
[03:14:30] And then recommendation three is more broad.
[03:14:35] When the State Board of Education is considering proposed legislation
[03:14:39] to enhance educational supports for students in the state, all students,
[03:14:44] UC recommends that USPE apply an intentional and specific inquiry process to ensure the
[03:14:52] legislative action will support students with disabilities.
[03:14:56] Just to ensure that students with disabilities are not left out.
[03:15:00] legislation is considered okay I I'll just give you a quick rundown of what I
[03:15:09] thought I think that I'd like to make a we can receive this right because we can
[03:15:17] make a motion to because it's actually okay I would recommend that we are
[03:15:21] currently reviewing our leadership standards and to make sure that number
[03:15:26] one recommendation is strongly included in there I don't know that that's a good
[03:15:33] word but right like there are standards that reflect reflect at this
[03:15:38] recommendation yep sure so I would okay so that that's a motion I would make
[03:15:48] that the reflect recommendation one standards reflect recommendation one
[03:15:53] okay and then yeah well we'll do that first so
[03:16:07] and then if does anybody well any discussion to this okay
[03:16:14] Okay, I'll make this motion that the new USBE leadership standards reflect recommendation one.
[03:16:25] And those are still, we did public comment, they haven't come to us yet, so hopefully those can get modified.
[03:16:30] Or could they reflect all three?
[03:16:32] Could they reflect the special education?
[03:16:35] Because I think, I mean, teacher burnout is such a huge issue.
[03:16:41] and feeling like they don't have administrator support.
[03:16:43] And especially, I've heard special ed teachers
[03:16:46] say they're overwhelmed with paperwork
[03:16:48] and maybe 27 students in a class,
[03:16:50] but it's not considered a full class because it's not 28.
[03:16:54] And that they don't have administrator support
[03:16:59] in the classroom, so I--
[03:17:01] Do you want me to adjust this so that it says leadership
[03:17:06] standards are reflective of the UCP recommendations?
[03:17:10] So it's maybe a little broader, sure.
[03:17:12] Yeah.
[03:17:13] Or is that too broad?
[03:17:14] I don't, I don't.
[03:17:16] You're going to see the leadership standards.
[03:17:18] I know.
[03:17:19] That's why I want to make sure that they're.
[03:17:22] Yeah, because I really like all of these recommendations.
[03:17:24] I think they should be incorporated, and it should be training for administrators that
[03:17:28] they know they're expected to be in the classroom.
[03:17:30] Can they be doing the paperwork and filling in the reports on the special ed students
[03:17:35] more than the teachers?
[03:17:38] Well, I just think if we made sure that there was some reflection coming from this recommendation.
[03:17:46] Okay, are you guys good with that?
[03:17:49] Okay, so the motion before us is that Sarah shares her sandwich with everyone.
[03:17:55] Okay.
[03:17:59] Okay, I just didn't see it yet.
[03:18:00] All right.
[03:18:02] That the new USBE leadership standards are reflective of the UCP recommendations.
[03:18:08] okay all those in favor aye aye any other discussion on any of these items do
[03:18:16] we need to put some I'm just looking at the recommendation to what what can we
[03:18:23] do there is there some motion we are we already working on that I am happy to
[03:18:30] work on that I this recommendation came in after I submitted our budget to OSEP
[03:18:37] because we have to we have to do that in we have to put it on our website in March so that it sits
[03:18:44] there for two months for public comment and then submit it in May so this recommendation came after
[03:18:49] that but I can set up the budget for us to be able to to do that um within I I've said many times
[03:18:57] before if we make more than a 10 adjustment in any of the lines we have to go back to OSEP
[03:19:02] But we can look at the budget, and in one of the big categories, I can set this up.
[03:19:07] Okay.
[03:19:08] So, and one other possibility, if you were interested or someone in your department, I think we have money for research and development, innovative ideas, right?
[03:19:18] This is one of those places where I feel like we could be innovative and develop something that would be productive and kind of.
[03:19:25] Oh, yeah.
[03:19:26] I can talk to Deputy Jones about that as well.
[03:19:28] Yeah.
[03:19:28] That might, that just might be a.
[03:19:30] That would be a really intriguing study.
[03:19:31] It would be.
[03:19:32] Right, that would be innovative to develop something that would be beneficial.
[03:19:35] Yeah, so can you maybe look at that,
[03:19:37] and then I think that could come back to this committee, probably.
[03:19:40] Or I guess I think you would have three of us
[03:19:44] that would probably be interested in signing on,
[03:19:45] and we could put it in finance so it's not held up a long time.
[03:19:49] Okay, any other comments?
[03:19:51] Do we need to receive this?
[03:19:53] Yeah, I'm just wondering if there's any other recommendations out of it.
[03:19:55] Okay, so the committee...
[03:20:00] So the motion would be that the committee accept the USEAP, USEAP, recommendations in the memo titles.
[03:20:10] It's supposed to be titled.
[03:20:11] Titled, yeah.
[03:20:12] I'm like, wait a minute.
[03:20:13] 2026 USEAP memo, teacher recruitment and retention for consideration.
[03:20:18] And might I just add who USEAP is, just for the public.
[03:20:22] It's the Utah Special Education Advisory Panel that advises the board.
[03:20:26] So just a frame of reference there,
[03:20:29] as we talk about acronyms sometimes.
[03:20:32] Any additional discussion?
[03:20:33] OK.
[03:20:35] So the motion before the committee
[03:20:36] is that the committee accept the USEEP recommendation
[03:20:39] in the memo titled 2026 USEEP Memo Teacher Recruitment
[03:20:44] and Retention for Consideration.
[03:20:46] All those in favor?
[03:20:47] Aye.
[03:20:47] Aye.
[03:20:48] OK, that passes unanimously.
[03:20:52] And I'm looking for a final motion.
[03:20:54] Motion to adjourn.
[03:20:56] Okay, motion to adjourn, and all those in favor?
[03:20:59] - Aye.
[03:21:00] - Thank you.