[0:23:27] >> I took this last month to
[0:23:27] Spain. And,
[0:23:30] as I was thinking about what I
[0:23:33] wanted to say and what I
[0:23:34] wanted to share today, I was
[0:23:37] inspired by our very own
[0:23:39] Superintendent Molly Hart.
[0:23:43] And, while I was in Spain, of
[0:23:46] all things, I was opening up
[0:23:49] this wonderful document that
[0:23:52] we got in January called the
[0:23:55] Annual Report.
[0:23:58] And I thought, 200 pages. I
[0:24:03] remember skimming through a
[0:24:03] little bit like oh this is
[0:24:05] nice. But I thought okay I'm gonna really look at it
[0:24:07] because I'm waiting in the
[0:24:08] airport for several hours. And
[0:24:11] so I looked at the 200 pages,
[0:24:13] and I read some words from
[0:24:15] Doctor Hart that I thought
[0:24:17] were very very appropriate.
[0:24:20] Especially in light of the
[0:24:23] experience that I was having
[0:24:25] in a wonderful city that I'm
[0:24:28] going to tell you about right
[0:24:29] now.
[0:24:35] I appreciate Kelsey s help
[0:24:39] in working the magic with our
[0:24:43] Powerpoint. Last month my
[0:24:45] family spent two glorious
[0:24:46] weeks in Spain. One highlight
[0:24:49] of our visit was organized by
[0:24:51] my son in law Javier. Who was
[0:24:53] born in Alcala de
[0:24:56] Hernandez.
[0:24:58] And as we experience the
[0:25:02] beauty and the memories of his
[0:25:04] hometown, I'm delighted to
[0:25:07] also visit the birthplace of
[0:25:08] another of Alcala's favorite
[0:25:09] sons. Miguel de Cervantes.
[0:25:14] We learned that scholars
[0:25:17] widely regard it as a founding
[0:25:20] piece of Western literature
[0:25:22] the first modern novel and one of the greatest works of
[0:25:24] fiction ever written was
[0:25:26] published in 1605. So this is
[0:25:28] an old book.
[0:25:30] Don Quixote has been
[0:25:32] translated into all major
[0:25:34] languages in over 700
[0:25:36] editions. Don Quixote teaches
[0:25:38] us about the power of
[0:25:39] imagination. The clash between
[0:25:42] idealism and harsh reality,
[0:25:45] and the value of loyalty.
[0:25:47] Cervantes exploration of how
[0:25:51] dreams shake shape our lives,
[0:25:53] why we need empathy, and how
[0:25:55] to balance hope with truth can
[0:25:57] metaphorically enrich our
[0:26:00] educational leadership on the
[0:26:01] Utah State Board of Education.
[0:26:03] Walking through the birthplace
[0:26:05] of Cervantes I couldn't help
[0:26:06] but think about the incredible
[0:26:08] weight carried by his most
[0:26:09] famous character. Don Quixote
[0:26:12] is not just a classic story
[0:26:13] about knights and windmills.
[0:26:16] It is a profound study on
[0:26:17] leadership, imagination, and
[0:26:20] the balance between our
[0:26:22] highest hopes, and the ground
[0:26:23] beneath our feet. As I
[0:26:26] reflected on our work on this
[0:26:27] board, I realized that
[0:26:30] Cervantes actually gave us a
[0:26:31] beautiful roadmap for how we
[0:26:32] can better serve Utah's
[0:26:34] students, families, and
[0:26:36] educators. For example, Don
[0:26:38] Quixote is all about high
[0:26:40] ideals. That mirrors our
[0:26:42] deepest duties as a board. To
[0:26:44] open doors of opportunity, and
[0:26:46] relentlessly pursue academic
[0:26:48] excellence for every single
[0:26:50] student by partnering closely
[0:26:52] with their families and
[0:26:53] teachers. At the same time,
[0:26:56] his story reminds us to keep
[0:26:58] pushing. Striving for the
[0:27:00] greater good matters the most
[0:27:02] when the path gets difficult
[0:27:03] for our students come with
[0:27:05] their parents, and our school
[0:27:06] communities. That means we
[0:27:08] also have to dare to dream.
[0:27:10] Channeling a bit of Quixote's imagination lets us innovate
[0:27:14] beyond everyday routines. To
[0:27:16] solve the very real problems
[0:27:17] that our students and
[0:27:18] educators face together today.
[0:27:21] Of course, we need to balance
[0:27:23] that hope with reality. Just
[0:27:26] like Quixote's grounded
[0:27:27] friends Sancho Panza. We have
[0:27:31] to anchor our biggest
[0:27:32] aspirations. In the actual
[0:27:34] daily needs of students in
[0:27:35] classrooms, and teachers.
[0:27:37] Naturally this kind of
[0:27:38] leadership requires deep
[0:27:39] empathy. The bond between
[0:27:42] Quixote and Sancho shows us
[0:27:44] how to listen to diverse
[0:27:45] student backgrounds, parents,
[0:27:47] and school staff. Balancing
[0:27:49] our big vision with genuine
[0:27:52] care and patience for everyone
[0:27:54] involved. And finally, we have
[0:27:56] to stay clear eyed. Knowing
[0:27:58] when idealism turns into
[0:27:59] delusion keeps us from tilting
[0:28:02] it at windmills as Don Quixote
[0:28:04] was so famous doing. Or
[0:28:07] passing disconnected rules
[0:28:08] that fail to serve the real
[0:28:09] needs of our kids, and the frontline educators who
[0:28:12] support them. Ultimately our
[0:28:16] job on this board is to be a
[0:28:17] visionary and a realist. We
[0:28:20] need Don Quixote's bold
[0:28:22] unwavering belief in what is
[0:28:24] possible, we never start
[0:28:27] fighting for every student
[0:28:29] -- we never stop fighting for
[0:28:30] every student's full
[0:28:30] potential. But we also need
[0:28:32] steady footsteps to keep us
[0:28:34] accountable to the practical
[0:28:35] realities of our communities.
[0:28:36] Let's not be afraid to dream
[0:28:38] big for Utah's kids. But,
[0:28:42] let's make sure those dreams
[0:28:43] are built alongside our
[0:28:45] families and educators to pave
[0:28:47] a clear path forward for every
[0:28:48] single student we serve.
[0:28:52] Doctor Molly Hart, our
[0:28:54] wonderful Superintendent of
[0:28:55] Public Instruction masterfully
[0:28:58] encapsulates commitment to
[0:28:59] dream big. In this year's
[0:29:02] annual report to the
[0:29:02] legislature.
[0:29:05] I want to begin to focus on
[0:29:09] how we are organizing
[0:29:11] ourselves to deliver lasting
[0:29:14] improvement for Utah students.
[0:29:17] To define a new set of goals
[0:29:20] for public education.
[0:29:26] To clearly articulate what
[0:29:29] must improve and our
[0:29:31] responsibility that that
[0:29:33] improvement should be shared.
[0:29:38] Aspiration alone does not
[0:29:41] change classrooms. Strengthen
[0:29:43] systems or improved outcomes,
[0:29:45] recognizing that this is the
[0:29:46] board and agency leadership
[0:29:47] made a deliberate decision to
[0:29:49] slow down and ensure that the working head would be
[0:29:53] disciplined, coherent, and
[0:29:55] executable. Leadership teams
[0:29:58] examined Utah State's Board of
[0:30:00] Education current practices
[0:30:02] honestly.
[0:30:12] In many cases this meant
[0:30:15] confronting hard truths about
[0:30:16] complexity, fragmentation, and
[0:30:19] the limits of doing more
[0:30:21] rather than doing better.
[0:30:25] It's not a list of initiatives
[0:30:27] but a coordinated system.
[0:30:29] Student academic outcomes,
[0:30:31] particularly early literacy,
[0:30:33] academic mastery, and
[0:30:35] graduation readiness remain at
[0:30:37] the center. Around those
[0:30:40] outcomes. The agency has
[0:30:42] committed to strengthening
[0:30:43] educator preparation and
[0:30:45] support. Improving oversight
[0:30:48] and accountability of local
[0:30:50] education agencies.
[0:30:52] Modernizing data systems,
[0:30:54] tightening internal controls,
[0:30:56] and ensuring that funding and
[0:30:59] staff capacity are aligned to
[0:31:01] high impact work. Central to
[0:31:03] this work is a renewed
[0:31:05] commitment to parents as
[0:31:07] essential partners in
[0:31:08] education. This commitment is
[0:31:13] not peripheral to academic
[0:31:14] improvement. It is
[0:31:16] foundational. Improving public
[0:31:19] education in Utah requires
[0:31:21] shared responsibility and
[0:31:23] ownership among all education
[0:31:25] partners. Our strategic plan
[0:31:28] reflects our collective
[0:31:30] commitment to ROE in the same
[0:31:32] direction towards clearer
[0:31:34] expectations, stronger systems, and better outcomes
[0:31:38] for Utah's students.
[0:31:57] [Music Playing]
[0:32:30] >> Thank you Superintendent
[0:32:30] Molly Hart for your
[0:32:30] leadership, and thanks to you
[0:32:32] and Ucsb's remarkable team,
[0:32:34] Utah as well on our way to
[0:32:37] dreaming big. I want you to
[0:32:40] just notice Don Quixote and
[0:32:42] his sidekick Sancho. And I
[0:32:46] have a little bookmark for you
[0:32:48] and some European chocolate
[0:32:50] just to remind you that we are
[0:32:55] in this together. And it is
[0:32:56] such a great journey. Thank
[0:32:58] you so much for the privilege
[0:32:59] of working together with you.
[0:33:09] >> Thank you Member Boothe.
[0:33:10] Let's move forward to employee
[0:33:12] recognition, we will turn time
[0:33:14] over to Superintendent Hart. I
[0:33:17] know. When I heard that music
[0:33:20] play, I knew. But I was
[0:33:23] hopeful that Randy would sing.
[0:33:26] He is the voice behind that.
[0:34:25] Molly Hart: There we go. I
[0:34:26] believe Milo is not able to be
[0:34:27] with us and I don't believe he
[0:34:28] was able to be on Zoom with
[0:34:33] us. But, I wanted to recognize
[0:34:36] Milo anyway. I just want to
[0:34:38] make sure that he was not able
[0:34:40] to join us. I know he was
[0:34:42] going to attempt. But, okay.
[0:34:44] Great. The employee of the
[0:34:46] month is Milo. Milo Mon. And
[0:34:50] he is a teaching and learning
[0:34:51] secondary science specialist.
[0:34:54] But, he is so much more than
[0:34:56] that. Milo brings a
[0:35:00] Joy and a collegiality to the
[0:35:07] department, but also to the
[0:35:09] agency. He has not just
[0:35:12] credentials and
[0:35:14] accomplishments behind his
[0:35:16] name, but really and truly,
[0:35:19] when you get to work with
[0:35:20] Milo, you walk away knowing
[0:35:24] you are part of a team. You're
[0:35:26] part of something.
[0:35:29] And you're going to accomplish
[0:35:31] great things. So, I will talk
[0:35:36] about accomplishments but
[0:35:36] really what I want to say and
[0:35:38] what I really want to get
[0:35:39] across is
[0:35:42] the essence of Milo. Because
[0:35:45] that team spirit, and that joy
[0:35:50] and care for the people around
[0:35:54] him and care for the
[0:35:56] organization
[0:35:59] it's so much more than just a
[0:36:04] list of accomplishments. Which
[0:36:06] are numerous.
[0:36:08] And you'll hear this in what
[0:36:11] his colleagues say about him.
[0:36:12] His vast experience Carmen I'm
[0:36:15] going to quote some of this.
[0:36:17] His vast experience spans
[0:36:19] secondary science
[0:36:19] Micro-credentials endorsement,
[0:36:21] the stem IEP, the IC grant. He
[0:36:25] is consistently two steps
[0:36:27] ahead of the pack modeling
[0:36:29] continuous growth and
[0:36:30] improvement. He advocates for
[0:36:33] students, he puts students
[0:36:36] first, the student experience
[0:36:39] by carefully evaluating how
[0:36:41] each resource support and
[0:36:44] program implementation that
[0:36:46] he's involved with from
[0:36:50] developing endorsement
[0:36:51] processes to ensure that
[0:36:55] highly qualified teachers are
[0:36:57] working with our students,
[0:36:58] ensuring teacher resources are
[0:37:00] actionable, his efforts are
[0:37:03] aimed at enhancing student
[0:37:04] learning. He works in systems,
[0:37:07] he works in resources, he puts
[0:37:09] it all together in one
[0:37:12] package. Milo is a great
[0:37:14] example for agency wide
[0:37:16] collaboration. He's not just a
[0:37:18] content expert but a catalyst
[0:37:20] for departmental cohesion who intentionally welcomes
[0:37:24] partnership.
[0:37:29] That just embodies the spirit that Member Boothe was talking
[0:37:32] about. And what we're building
[0:37:35] in the agency. I can't be more
[0:37:37] pleased to introduce Milo as
[0:37:39] the employee of the month for
[0:37:40] July.
[0:37:44] He's not with us this morning
[0:37:47] but I'm sure he will watch
[0:37:50] this and thank you for the
[0:37:52] opportunity to share a little
[0:37:56] bit. Now let me pull up, give
[0:38:00] me a minute. But I know
[0:38:01] Rebecca's here I saw her this
[0:38:02] morning. So Rebecca, come on
[0:38:05] up!
[0:38:05] We got a twofer, because we
[0:38:09] don't do the board meeting
[0:38:14] in July. So -- let me pull up
[0:38:20] my notes.
[0:38:28] And, you have before you
[0:38:30] Rebecca, and I also want to
[0:38:33] share with you a little bit
[0:38:36] about what her colleagues say
[0:38:37] about her. Rebecca is
[0:38:43] just the guru, the master of
[0:38:47] our Utah Grants management
[0:38:48] system. So, when you think
[0:38:50] Utah grants, here it is. Right
[0:38:54] here. That's her baby. She has
[0:38:57] done a ton of work on updates.
[0:39:00] So, I use Utah grants as a
[0:39:02] practitioner. And, now I work
[0:39:05] with Utah grants on the other
[0:39:07] side. And I can tell you that
[0:39:12] Utah Grants is one of the
[0:39:15] items in our secret sauce so
[0:39:17] to speak. To make things work.
[0:39:20] And inevitably, it came up
[0:39:24] even this week. We run into
[0:39:27] some sort of challenge. And my
[0:39:30] first thought is well Utah
[0:39:32] grants could solve that. We
[0:39:34] will just do another little tweak and add that to the
[0:39:36] program. And, sure enough,
[0:39:39] Rebecca has done that all the
[0:39:42] way along. And again, it's not
[0:39:45] just the work that our
[0:39:46] employees are doing. It's what
[0:39:48] they bring to the job. And
[0:39:51] Rebecca, she will meet you
[0:39:53] with a smile. She is an
[0:39:55] exceptional leader. She truly
[0:39:57] cares about her peers, and our
[0:39:59] teachers, and our students.
[0:40:01] She inspires others to -- in
[0:40:06] fact the person that nominated
[0:40:07] her said she inspired me to
[0:40:09] work on my public speaking
[0:40:10] skills, my project quality,
[0:40:12] and my leadership. Now, that
[0:40:15] right there. When you are
[0:40:16] inspiring others, that's just
[0:40:20] magical. That's awesome.
[0:40:21] Rebecca is, I love this. She is always willing to help you
[0:40:28] with any task, even if it
[0:40:30] doesn't pertain to her job.
[0:40:32] Rebecca is a great asset to
[0:40:34] this agency, and truly
[0:40:36] exemplifies great leadership,
[0:40:38] innovation, and
[0:40:39] professionalism. Rebecca,
[0:40:41] thank you for all of your work
[0:40:42] that you do.
[0:40:47] [Applause]
[0:40:48] Molly Hart:
[0:40:48] And, Rebecca is a quilter two. Yeah. So we've got superpowers
[0:40:53] all the way around. Anyway,
[0:40:55] thank you Rebecca for all that
[0:40:56] you do! So employees of the
[0:40:58] month.
[0:40:59] One of the great joys of this
[0:41:03] job is to get to see how all
[0:41:08] of the magic happens. And the
[0:41:12] magic happens because of the
[0:41:13] people that we have at USBE.
[0:41:16] Yes, we complete tasks. But,
[0:41:21] the reason we can put it all
[0:41:22] together in the ways that we
[0:41:24] do for students and teachers,
[0:41:26] and families. It's because of
[0:41:28] the people that we have here.
[0:41:30] So, thank you for giving me
[0:41:33] the opportunity to shine a
[0:41:35] light on some of our folks.
[0:41:39] Matt Hymas: Thank you. That's
[0:41:41] wonderful. We've got some
[0:41:42] great staff here at the USBE.
[0:41:44] So I appreciate taking this
[0:41:46] time to highlight them. With
[0:41:48] that let's move to 1.4 this is
[0:41:49] the education highlight. And,
[0:41:54] who is -- are you doing that
[0:41:56] Kelsey? Okay.
[0:42:12] Kelsey James: I know you just
[0:42:12] asked me if I was doing it,
[0:42:14] but I'm going to welcome up
[0:42:20] (Indiscernible) in Lehigh. So,
[0:42:21] if you two ladies would or at
[0:42:23] least Aaron would join us at
[0:42:24] the podium here. We are just
[0:42:27] going to have a little
[0:42:29] presentation for you all. I know a lot of the board
[0:42:32] members here are very familiar
[0:42:33] with Purple Star schools, but
[0:42:35] we thought we would hear from
[0:42:37] one of the people on the
[0:42:40] ground, making sure that this
[0:42:42] program is happening. So I
[0:42:44] will turn things over to
[0:42:46] Aaron.
[0:42:57] >> Red is go so we are good to
[0:42:57] go. Okay. As stated my name is
[0:42:58] Aaron Gates and I'm the
[0:42:59] principal at Fox Hollow
[0:43:00] Elementary in Lehigh. Thank
[0:43:02] you for the opportunity to
[0:43:03] come here today to share with
[0:43:05] you some of the progress that
[0:43:06] we've been doing with Utah's
[0:43:07] Purple Star School initiative.
[0:43:10] Today I just want to celebrate
[0:43:12] a little bit more than growth.
[0:43:15] We are just celebrating the
[0:43:16] commitment that we have been
[0:43:17] making in our schools. Last
[0:43:21] year, my school was one of
[0:43:24] seven other schools in the
[0:43:25] Alpine School District in our inaugural grouping in Purple
[0:43:29] Star Schools.
[0:43:31] Just this past Green we were
[0:43:33] honored to host the 2026
[0:43:36] ceremony that was held at the
[0:43:37] Adobe building in Lehigh.
[0:43:40] The next double dosage is
[0:43:42] showing only mine?
[0:43:46] With all my notes?
[0:44:04] So, I'm going to defer to your
[0:44:08] knowledge but my homework said
[0:44:10] there was about a thousand
[0:44:10] schools in Utah so we're at
[0:44:11] 177 schools who have earned
[0:44:14] that designation of Purple
[0:44:15] Star Schools. Out of alpine we
[0:44:17] now have 45 of our 92 schools.
[0:44:20] So just about half way Mark. And if you consider the fact
[0:44:23] that it's been a short amount
[0:44:24] of time, I think that's an amazing amount of progress
[0:44:26] that we have made thus far. We
[0:44:29] have a smattering of other
[0:44:30] charter schools and public
[0:44:31] schools that are involved with
[0:44:32] this initiative as well on the
[0:44:34] side.
[0:44:38] It's going to take you through
[0:44:41] some of the photos that were
[0:44:44] at that designation ceremony
[0:44:45] that we held. So, it was hosted by Alpine School
[0:44:50] District, we had students from
[0:44:53] Saratoga Shores Elementary as
[0:44:55] our colorguard, so you can see
[0:44:56] their sweet selves with all of
[0:44:58] our flags.
[0:45:00] The Purple Star School program
[0:45:03] is recognizing and supporting
[0:45:04] those challenges of military
[0:45:06] families and children. It distinguishes Utah schools
[0:45:09] that are creating welcoming
[0:45:09] and supportive environments to
[0:45:11] ease those transitions.
[0:45:13] Military connected students
[0:45:16] bring a host of really amazing
[0:45:17] experiences into our schools
[0:45:19] they have resiliency they have
[0:45:20] leadership content but they also have a lot of challenges
[0:45:22] as well. So if you have an
[0:45:24] active duty family member, you're dealing with frequent
[0:45:27] moves, you're dealing with
[0:45:28] school transitions, there's a
[0:45:30] lot of attachment components
[0:45:31] that come with that that you
[0:45:32] may struggle with. There's a
[0:45:34] lot of emotionality behind
[0:45:35] that. So we really want to
[0:45:37] hone in on what it is, that
[0:45:40] connected students need. If
[0:45:42] you have a reservist you have
[0:45:43] some separations that pop up
[0:45:45] here and there so there is a
[0:45:46] lot of up and down that you
[0:45:47] may be dealing with. As a
[0:45:49] child.
[0:45:51] If you have a veteran that's
[0:45:54] your military connection there
[0:45:55] are past separations and
[0:45:56] healing wounds that you may need to work through so we
[0:45:59] have some counseling services
[0:46:00] that we put in place specifically for those
[0:46:03] differing needs. When we had
[0:46:07] our inaugural we had four
[0:46:08] amazing speakers. So it was
[0:46:10] emceed by doctor Rich toll who
[0:46:11] was our Alpine School District
[0:46:13] director of communications.
[0:46:14] And he's actually an Army
[0:46:16] reservist himself. So as our
[0:46:18] school district community we are learning a little bit more
[0:46:20] about what it means to get ready to lose him for a little
[0:46:23] bit as he's going to be
[0:46:24] deploying shortly. So it's kind of some real time
[0:46:28] learning for all of us. Rob
[0:46:30] Smith our superintendent of the district he talked about
[0:46:32] the power of community, and
[0:46:34] how, as a veteran he's had
[0:46:37] that little micro community
[0:46:38] that's come together for his family when he was deployed.
[0:46:40] So it was great to hear that firsthand report of what that
[0:46:42] meant for him and his family.
[0:46:44] We also had Miss Jenny Taylor.
[0:46:46] She talked about how many
[0:46:47] military connected children we
[0:46:48] actually have in our schools.
[0:46:50] And I know for myself, when we actually started looking at
[0:46:53] the numbers at our school, it
[0:46:55] was amazing that some of these children didn't have any
[0:46:58] immediate needs, so they
[0:46:59] weren't coming up on our
[0:47:00] radar. So really being able to
[0:47:02] pull them out and understand what their specific needs were
[0:47:04] um it was great for us to
[0:47:06] really shine a light on that.
[0:47:08] She also shared that as a
[0:47:11] young military mom, she didn't
[0:47:13] even know what to ask for the
[0:47:15] schools for support. So it's
[0:47:16] great for us to kind of
[0:47:17] anticipate the needs of some
[0:47:19] of our students and families. We also had Gary Harter there
[0:47:22] he's the commissioner of Utah's Department of Veteran
[0:47:24] and Military Affairs, and he
[0:47:25] was able to share with us how dedicated Governor Cox is to
[0:47:28] supporting military families through schools and through
[0:47:30] the initiative.
[0:47:35] I, myself come I'm going into
[0:47:37] my ninth year of
[0:47:38] administration. Did four years of school administration in
[0:47:40] California, my school district
[0:47:42] has two schools that were on
[0:47:44] the Camp Pendleton base. So,
[0:47:47] there are those unique needs
[0:47:48] that you learn. My school was
[0:47:51] just off the back gate, so it
[0:47:52] was great learning. Again, for
[0:47:54] me to really understand the
[0:47:56] transient component and the
[0:47:58] emotional needs of our
[0:47:59] students. So when I moved to
[0:48:01] Utah, there was that gap, and
[0:48:03] it was right about the time that we were starting the
[0:48:04] initiative for Purple Star
[0:48:06] Schools. So as soon as it came
[0:48:07] out, it was something I jumped
[0:48:09] on for my school, because
[0:48:10] again, I think there are some
[0:48:12] very specific unique needs
[0:48:13] that our students of military
[0:48:15] connected families need.
[0:48:18] So being able to be in that
[0:48:21] class and see the change and
[0:48:23] see the needs being met with
[0:48:23] our students has been
[0:48:24] absolutely amazing. So this
[0:48:27] designation for us is more
[0:48:29] than the banner on our wall,
[0:48:30] it really is that promise that
[0:48:33] we are going to support our
[0:48:34] students and our families that walk through our doors that
[0:48:36] they are welcomed, that they
[0:48:38] are supported, and that they
[0:48:39] have an opportunity to belong
[0:48:41] from day one. At our school we
[0:48:43] do have a lighthouse leadership team and that
[0:48:45] leadership team is based of
[0:48:46] students. And, they are that
[0:48:49] welcoming committee. They are that friendly face. So even at
[0:48:52] the end of the day if you're
[0:48:53] brand new you remember those 6 to 7 faces that you can
[0:48:56] connect with in different
[0:48:57] grades at recess time, anytime
[0:48:59] throughout the day it's led by
[0:49:00] our school counselor so she's
[0:49:01] the adult component. And then
[0:49:03] our staff is now trained on the differing needs for our
[0:49:05] students as well. So, I appreciate that we are
[0:49:11] building schools that honor
[0:49:12] sacrifices of military
[0:49:13] families, and that this is
[0:49:15] something that I get to
[0:49:16] celebrate with you today. So I appreciate your time. Thank
[0:49:18] you.
[0:49:21] And I am so glad you brought
[0:49:24] in parting gifts. I have Purple Star School cookies that I'm going to leave here
[0:49:28] for you. So thank you for
[0:49:29] starting the trend. (laughs)
[0:49:37] Kelsey James: Thank you so much Erin we
[0:49:37] really appreciate you coming
[0:49:38] not only being here but all the work that you're doing in
[0:49:40] your school community to help
[0:49:42] support and recognize these
[0:49:45] military families.
[0:49:48] I know if you our board
[0:49:51] members were able to go to the
[0:49:52] award ceremony this summer, so I don't know if there were any
[0:49:55] thoughts or feelings that our
[0:49:57] board members wanted to share
[0:49:58] from their experience or if
[0:50:00] there was any questions for
[0:50:01] Erin.
[0:50:08] Matt Hymas:
[0:50:08] Member Hall?
[0:50:10] >> I really appreciate the
[0:50:11] heart and the passion behind
[0:50:13] what they are doing there. In
[0:50:16] this school right now alone we
[0:50:17] have 900 airmen that are
[0:50:19] deployed and that impacts so
[0:50:21] many students as well. And all
[0:50:23] of the dependents. That's just
[0:50:24] at Hill. We're not talking
[0:50:26] statewide. Between all of our
[0:50:28] Army bases and Air Guard. And
[0:50:29] all of those things. So I just
[0:50:31] really appreciate that and I appreciate the heart behind it
[0:50:33] and I appreciate the state
[0:50:34] board taking the step and the challenge to make sure that these programs are in our
[0:50:37] schools.
[0:50:44] Matt Hymas:
[0:50:44] Thank you. And thank you to
[0:50:45] the Purple Star program. It's
[0:50:46] wonderful. Kelsey, anything
[0:50:48] else? Okay let's move on to
[0:50:50] agenda item two this is our
[0:50:52] public comment, and before we
[0:50:54] get started there let me just
[0:50:55] read a disclaimer here. The
[0:50:59] public may sign up to share
[0:51:00] public comments at
[0:51:01] schools.Utah.gov, the public may send written public
[0:51:05] comments to the board at board
[0:51:07] at schools.Utah.gov, public
[0:51:09] comments are limited to two
[0:51:10] minutes per person. A comment
[0:51:13] can express support or assent
[0:51:15] for regulatory action,
[0:51:16] individual should not use public comment to complain
[0:51:19] about personnel issues or attack or defame an
[0:51:22] individual. Speakers making a
[0:51:24] highly detailed or complex
[0:51:25] comment should also consider
[0:51:26] providing a written outline of
[0:51:28] their words to the board.
[0:51:30] Please remember that children
[0:51:32] may hear your comments so be
[0:51:33] thoughtful and professional and keep your comments
[0:51:35] appropriate for a general
[0:51:36] audience. If you have material
[0:51:38] with explicit language or
[0:51:39] content submit such material
[0:51:41] in writing to the board at
[0:51:42] board at schools.Utah.gov.
[0:51:44] With that, we have a small
[0:51:47] handful this morning. That we
[0:51:50] are welcoming to the podium.
[0:51:53] Let's begin here I have Rahul
[0:51:55] Nair.
[0:52:01] And if you will push that
[0:52:04] button and just wait for one
[0:52:06] second. Push the little
[0:52:08] speaker guy button. You're
[0:52:10] good. Okay. Go ahead.
[0:52:14] >> Good morning and thank you
[0:52:15] board members and
[0:52:17] superintendent doctor heart
[0:52:18] for the time today. I'm
[0:52:20] currently a rising senior at Skyline High School and I'm
[0:52:23] here to talk to you about the urgent need to create as well
[0:52:25] as actively engage a student
[0:52:27] AI advisory committee with the
[0:52:29] Utah State Board of Education.
[0:52:32] As a student myself I've been
[0:52:35] able to see how AI is becoming
[0:52:38] more and more prevalent in
[0:52:39] classrooms all around me. This
[0:52:41] is mainly driven by the fact that Utah with the support of
[0:52:43] the State Board of Education
[0:52:44] is becoming a pioneering state. When it comes to AI
[0:52:47] policies in information technology. And this means
[0:52:50] that almost every single
[0:52:51] student in the city of Utah
[0:52:52] has either been affected, or
[0:52:54] will be affected by these AI
[0:52:56] policies. There really isn't a
[0:52:58] bridge that connects these
[0:52:59] students to these proposed
[0:53:00] plans that aims to benefit
[0:53:02] them. A structured student AI advisory committee would
[0:53:05] provide a platform for students to not only share
[0:53:07] their ideas, but at the same
[0:53:09] time provide real time
[0:53:10] feedback on how policies are
[0:53:12] affecting their day to day
[0:53:13] learning. At the same time it will allow us to provide
[0:53:16] student insights for future AI
[0:53:17] policy decision making. Now
[0:53:19] I've been working on this
[0:53:20] project for almost a year now,
[0:53:22] I have been able to meet with
[0:53:23] educators as well as administrators from all across
[0:53:25] the nation. And even a couple of board members. And almost
[0:53:28] always the feedback that I
[0:53:29] have gotten when I talk about this committee has been
[0:53:31] positive. Because almost
[0:53:33] everyone can concur that if
[0:53:35] this committee does go into
[0:53:36] fruition this will allow for
[0:53:37] our state's AI policies to not
[0:53:39] only be innovative which they already are, but at the same
[0:53:42] time it will allow for our policies to be effective as
[0:53:44] well as practical in the
[0:53:45] classroom. So with that, I
[0:53:48] really do hope that you
[0:53:49] actually go through and create
[0:53:51] this committee as it would
[0:53:52] allow us to have more student representation when it comes
[0:53:54] to AI policies. So once again,
[0:53:57] thank you for the time, and I
[0:53:58] really do hope you consider
[0:53:59] making this. Thank you.
[0:54:07] Matt Hymas:
[0:54:07] Thank you. Next we have
[0:54:07] Kennedy Mickelson?
[0:54:18] >> Hello everyone and good morning chair and members of
[0:54:18] the board. Thank you for your
[0:54:18] time my name is Kennedy
[0:54:19] Mickelson would you all just
[0:54:20] heard. I'm a rising senior at Hillcrest High School and I'm
[0:54:23] someone who's deeply
[0:54:24] interested in AI, not just how
[0:54:26] we use it, but how it is
[0:54:27] governed and reshaping our
[0:54:29] lives. Here's a little bit
[0:54:31] about me I've spoken at two
[0:54:32] conferences on Utah education
[0:54:33] involving AI in the past, and
[0:54:35] I've worked in AI governance
[0:54:37] and law for over a year now.
[0:54:38] You just heard from Rahul why
[0:54:40] that student voice matters in
[0:54:42] the support for this, but I
[0:54:43] just want to be specific about
[0:54:44] where those voices matter.
[0:54:46] Right now students are being
[0:54:47] asked what we think after
[0:54:49] decisions are made. The point
[0:54:51] of this advisory board is
[0:54:53] simple. To put student voices
[0:54:54] into the two places where
[0:54:56] policies actually are shaped,
[0:54:59] in the discussion and framing of the curriculum. First of
[0:55:02] all the discussion HB 273
[0:55:03] directs this board to write
[0:55:05] the model AI policies that
[0:55:06] every district will follow.
[0:55:08] And students should be in that
[0:55:09] conversation. We are among
[0:55:11] Utah's heaviest LLM users, we know where these tools
[0:55:14] generally help us learn and
[0:55:16] where they cross the line.
[0:55:17] Students are ready for this
[0:55:18] work, this past July nearly
[0:55:20] 100 students from all 50
[0:55:21] states formed a national AI
[0:55:23] student senate in Boston and
[0:55:25] passed a framework for AI in
[0:55:27] schools that is now going to
[0:55:29] ten 000 school leaders
[0:55:30] nationwide. High School
[0:55:32] students wrote a national AI
[0:55:33] policy in a single weekend,
[0:55:36] the question is whether or not
[0:55:37] Utah gives students a similar
[0:55:39] seat to. Secondly and most
[0:55:41] importantly the framing of its
[0:55:42] curriculum itself, as you guys
[0:55:44] know HB 218 is adding AI to seventh and eighth grade
[0:55:49] classes right now. When you
[0:55:51] decide how AI becomes part of what we learn, the students
[0:55:54] who live with AI should help
[0:55:55] frame it from the start. Not
[0:55:57] react only at the end.
[0:55:59] Students can tell you what
[0:56:00] will actually help in their classroom and what is likely
[0:56:02] to be valuable in the future
[0:56:03] and what won't be. How you
[0:56:06] teach us to use and value AI
[0:56:07] now determines how we will
[0:56:08] live later. So that's what
[0:56:10] this AI Student Advisory Board
[0:56:12] built in. Support this work
[0:56:14] please and give Utah students a standing voice in the room
[0:56:16] where AI policy involving our
[0:56:18] education is written. Thank you.
[0:56:22] Matt Hymas: Thank you. It looks like we will have one
[0:56:24] more high school senior Jay
[0:56:26] Blaine. I'm just kidding Jay
[0:56:28] come on up here you're next.
[0:56:33] We want to thank our seniors
[0:56:35] for coming in today though seriously. We always
[0:56:37] appreciate hearing from
[0:56:39] students in our system. Jay,
[0:56:42] thank you.
[0:56:44] >> You got the senior part
[0:56:46] right.
[0:56:56] (laughs)
[0:56:56] I'm speaking as an
[0:56:57] independent today. Today I
[0:57:00] wanted to give appreciation. I
[0:57:04] have been in public education
[0:57:05] for 37 years. And I will be
[0:57:08] retiring on September 1st. I
[0:57:11] was an educator in Granite
[0:57:12] School District for 20.5
[0:57:14] years. And I became an
[0:57:17] advocate for public education
[0:57:18] working for UEA for 16.5
[0:57:20] years. I want to thank all of
[0:57:24] the board members who have
[0:57:25] served.
[0:57:26] Those and those who took time
[0:57:30] to serve the schoolchildren of
[0:57:33] the state.
[0:57:36] And those who took time to
[0:57:38] meet with me and talk with me
[0:57:39] over the years. Not all of them of course are here in
[0:57:42] this room today.
[0:57:45] And unfortunately some have
[0:57:47] even left for higher callings.
[0:57:49] You know what I'm talking
[0:57:51] about, I believe that I've
[0:57:54] spent as many hours in this
[0:57:55] room as anybody who served on
[0:57:56] the board. Me and my good
[0:57:58] friend Royce back here.
[0:58:01] And just one comment that I
[0:58:04] have here in my notes, I have
[0:58:07] noticed with the board over the years they go back and
[0:58:11] forth. Between a board that
[0:58:13] focuses on service and a board
[0:58:15] that focuses on compliance. It
[0:58:17] was very well pointed out by
[0:58:18] these two fine seniors here
[0:58:20] you know seniors in high
[0:58:22] school. The difference. About
[0:58:25] when you make
[0:58:26] Policy. And that is one of your biggest -- how do you
[0:58:42] involve people in that
[0:58:43] process? And I think when you're in a service model, you're involving people from
[0:58:48] the get go. Whether you have
[0:58:50] been directed to do it by the
[0:58:51] legislature you have pretty
[0:58:53] strong parameters, just
[0:58:56] another -- anyway. Involving
[0:59:01] people from the get go saying
[0:59:03] here's the rule and obey it
[0:59:04] that's compliance. Thank you to the staff who's always been
[0:59:07] so willing to work with me.
[0:59:09] Many hours of collaboration. One example was the
[0:59:12] development of the paid
[0:59:14] professional time, started with a board member and myself and then we involved the
[0:59:17] school finance team, we got a
[0:59:19] great thing passed that many
[0:59:20] people have been helped,
[0:59:22] including students. The school finance team has always been
[0:59:27] willing to work with me and
[0:59:28] help me throughout the years.
[0:59:30] Starting with Tom Haber and
[0:59:32] Scott Jones all the way down.
[0:59:34] They are great individuals
[0:59:35] they're. The other staff members at the state board are
[0:59:37] great. The staff that supports
[0:59:40] the board, they make you look
[0:59:41] really good by the way. So,
[0:59:43] thank you to them, and
[0:59:44] everyone that's had a chance or the pleasure I should say
[0:59:47] to serve on the Finance
[0:59:48] Committee. I've spent many
[0:59:51] hours with that committee.
[0:59:52] It's a great committee. The
[0:59:54] main support person there can
[0:59:55] Wilcox is fantastic as well. I
[0:59:58] want to thank you for the opportunity that I had to
[1:00:00] serve on the Trust Land
[1:00:01] Advisory Committee. A
[1:00:03] wonderful group of people come
[1:00:04] a very knowledgeable. And
[1:00:06] representatives from around
[1:00:07] the state do a great job
[1:00:09] working with that incredible
[1:00:11] resource. It's an incredible
[1:00:14] resource for our students and
[1:00:16] educators around the state. So
[1:00:17] just in closing, I thought
[1:00:21] about mentioning more of names
[1:00:22] but I would leave people out.
[1:00:23] And, just carry on your great
[1:00:27] work in serving the students
[1:00:29] of Utah. And the educators in
[1:00:33] our great state and what makes
[1:00:34] us such a great powerful
[1:00:38] -- power for good. After 37 years I want to stay involved.
[1:00:42] So I'm actually running for
[1:00:43] the Granite School board. I'm taking that opportunity to
[1:00:47] maybe keep my foot in the
[1:00:48] water. And help to share some of my knowledge and expertise
[1:00:52] with them. Thank you.
[1:00:55] Matt Hymas: Thank you Jay,
[1:00:58] thank you for your years of
[1:00:59] service, and good luck in the
[1:01:00] future. Okay. Next we have
[1:01:03] Julie Cluff.
[1:01:17] >> Good morning my name is
[1:01:17] Julie Cluff I'm the Utah PTA
[1:01:17] president. I love back to
[1:01:19] school, I love school supply
[1:01:21] shopping, I love the smell of
[1:01:22] freshly sharpened pencils. So,
[1:01:25] there's something truly magical about the beginning of
[1:01:27] a school year. And I'm sure
[1:01:29] many of you feel the same.
[1:01:31] It's a season filled with
[1:01:33] possibility, anticipation, and
[1:01:35] hope. It's the excitement of
[1:01:37] finding that right backpack,
[1:01:39] and picking out that perfect
[1:01:41] first day of school outfit.
[1:01:43] And walking into a classroom
[1:01:44] full of new opportunities.
[1:01:46] It's seeing teachers return
[1:01:48] with fresh ideas for and new
[1:01:51] energy and inspiration from the learning and professional
[1:01:53] development that they have
[1:01:54] embraced over their summer
[1:01:55] time. It's also a season of
[1:01:58] emotions for families. Some parents are counting down the
[1:02:01] days until routines return,
[1:02:03] others are wondering how their
[1:02:04] little ones suddenly was old
[1:02:06] enough to be in kindergarten?
[1:02:07] While others are celebrating
[1:02:10] and mourning that last first
[1:02:12] day as they watched their
[1:02:13] senior begin their last year
[1:02:15] of school before they
[1:02:16] graduate. No matter where we
[1:02:19] find ourselves, the start of school reminds us that every
[1:02:22] child is beginning a new
[1:02:23] chapter. As we welcome
[1:02:25] students back, let us also
[1:02:27] renew our positive engagement
[1:02:29] around public education. Every
[1:02:32] single day, in every classroom
[1:02:34] across our state, incredible
[1:02:36] things are happening. Teachers
[1:02:37] are inspiring curiosity, staff members are creating welcoming
[1:02:42] and safe environments. And
[1:02:44] students are discovering new
[1:02:45] talents, building friendships,
[1:02:47] solving problems, and
[1:02:49] preparing for bright futures.
[1:02:51] Our public schools are
[1:02:53] remarkable places where
[1:02:54] children learn, grow, and
[1:02:57] discover who they can become.
[1:02:58] They deserve our
[1:02:59] encouragement, our partnership, and our
[1:03:02] confidence. On behalf of the
[1:03:04] Utah PTA I want to wish every
[1:03:05] student, educator, school
[1:03:06] employee, and family, a
[1:03:08] wonderful first day of school.
[1:03:10] May this school year be filled
[1:03:11] with kindness, collaboration,
[1:03:13] positive energy, and a
[1:03:15] classroom full of eager
[1:03:17] learners. Thank you.
[1:03:24] >> Thank you. Next we have Mr.
[1:03:24] Espinosa.
[1:03:54] Adam good morning my name is
[1:03:56] Felix Espinosa and I'm the
[1:03:57] founder and chairman of Utah
[1:03:58] sex offense laws. Nonprofit
[1:04:02] policy research organization
[1:04:04] focused on evidence based
[1:04:05] reform of Utah's sex offense
[1:04:07] registry framework regarding
[1:04:09] item 10.2 on today's agenda we
[1:04:12] support closing the background
[1:04:14] check gap that the Highland
[1:04:16] High School incident
[1:04:16] identified. USBE previously
[1:04:19] committed to closing that gap through administrative
[1:04:21] rulemaking. Our concern here
[1:04:23] is with the escalation from
[1:04:25] administrative rule to statutory amendment as a
[1:04:27] disproportionate response. The
[1:04:29] proposal requested permanent
[1:04:30] statutory amendment to 53-29
[1:04:32] 306. And instead is a categorically different
[1:04:37] instrument. It amends criminal
[1:04:39] law not school procedure. It
[1:04:41] affects thousands of
[1:04:42] registrants and their families who had nothing to do with the
[1:04:45] Highland High School trip. The individual in this incident
[1:04:48] was supervised under Group B
[1:04:49] conditions. Utah's tier four
[1:04:51] adult victim offenses and was
[1:04:53] off supervision at the time. Under the adult Probation and
[1:04:58] parole framework and the
[1:04:59] statute in question as it's
[1:05:01] currently written group B
[1:05:02] registrants are not restricted
[1:05:03] from contact with minors. He
[1:05:06] was not evading any rule. The
[1:05:09] proposed overnight revision does not preserve that
[1:05:11] distinction. Last time this specific part of the Utah Code
[1:05:15] was amended was during the 2023 General Session because
[1:05:18] of a disproportionate response
[1:05:20] to one incident. This is a
[1:05:23] policy escalation that has
[1:05:24] continuously been documented
[1:05:25] over legislative sessions. A
[1:05:28] single incident producing a
[1:05:29] categorically substantial expansion that affects an entire class of people and
[1:05:33] does nothing to solve the core
[1:05:34] issue at bar. USBE s public
[1:05:39] comment disclaimer states a
[1:05:40] constructive comment city
[1:05:42] supported by evidence data and information that's more likely
[1:05:44] to influence regulatory
[1:05:45] decision making, yet the evidence and data of the
[1:05:48] policy section cites no
[1:05:49] recidivism research, no risk
[1:05:51] data profile, no reference to
[1:05:53] the proportionality logic
[1:05:55] already embedded in Utah's
[1:05:56] law. The results and
[1:05:58] consequences of an action are
[1:05:59] framed entirely around increased parent taxpayer
[1:06:01] satisfaction, reduced
[1:06:03] enrollment, legal liability to
[1:06:04] the state, not child safety
[1:06:07] evidence which is supposed to
[1:06:08] be the foundation of this
[1:06:09] proposed bill. We ask the
[1:06:13] board to retain administrative
[1:06:14] rulemaking as the supportive
[1:06:16] instrument. Thank you for your time.
[1:06:20] Matt Hymas: Thank you. Next we
[1:06:21] have Michelle Bagley?
[1:06:35] >> Hello. My name is Michelle
[1:06:35] Bagley and I am here to
[1:06:35] comment on the math standards.
[1:06:37] Just for some background, I've
[1:06:38] been a teacher in Utah since 1992 and I started at Hunter
[1:06:41] High School. I have a
[1:06:43] bachelor's degree in mathematics and a master's
[1:06:45] degree in math Ed both from
[1:06:47] BYU. I have taught literally
[1:06:50] thousands of students
[1:06:51] mathematics in this state.
[1:06:53] When I started teaching we had
[1:06:56] the algebra geometry algebra
[1:06:57] two sandwich, and I'm here to
[1:07:00] beg you and plead please do
[1:07:01] not return us to those days.
[1:07:03] Please don't even offer it as
[1:07:04] a choice. We are more powerful
[1:07:07] when we are united, and the integrated standards are by
[1:07:10] far the superior way to teach
[1:07:12] and learn mathematics. When students learn math with
[1:07:15] integrated standards they see
[1:07:16] a big picture of mathematics.
[1:07:18] And they make connections. And
[1:07:20] it really facilitates teaching
[1:07:21] critical thinking because then
[1:07:23] they can apply what they've
[1:07:24] learned to several different
[1:07:25] scenarios across topics. Back when I had to teach the
[1:07:29] algebra sandwich, students
[1:07:31] were not making those
[1:07:32] connections. They struggled to
[1:07:34] transfer their learning to new
[1:07:36] topics, they were more narrow
[1:07:37] minded, and they would do things like refuse to hear
[1:07:40] about equations in a geometry
[1:07:41] class because hey, equations
[1:07:43] were only for algebra, even if it was the equation to the
[1:07:47] thing they were looking at
[1:07:48] drawing on the board. Every other country in the world
[1:07:51] teaches integrated
[1:07:52] mathematics. Please don't
[1:07:54] erase all of the progress that
[1:07:55] we've made in Utah by moving us back to the algebra
[1:07:57] sandwich. I've been teaching
[1:08:00] secondary for 15 years. And
[1:08:03] when students move in from out
[1:08:04] of state, they do fine. We
[1:08:06] should not change our standards just because that's
[1:08:08] how other states teach at. I have seen much more frequently
[1:08:11] students move from within the
[1:08:13] state and when they do, that
[1:08:16] is seamless because we are all
[1:08:17] using the same standards. I
[1:08:19] have personally been able to collaborate with teachers all
[1:08:21] the way across the Wasatch Front all because we have one
[1:08:24] set of standards. If districts
[1:08:25] were giving a choice for which
[1:08:27] standards to use and which
[1:08:28] tests to give, that collaboration would be
[1:08:30] stifled. I have decades of
[1:08:32] experience, I've taught
[1:08:33] thousands of students, and I'm
[1:08:35] here to tell you the integrated standards are the best thing for mathematics
[1:08:37] education. Please adopt one set of standards, the
[1:08:41] integrated standards so that
[1:08:42] we can continue to make
[1:08:43] progress. Thank you.
[1:08:46] Matt Hymas: Thank you. That
[1:08:48] concludes public comment. So
[1:08:50] with that we will move forward
[1:08:52] with agenda item three.
[1:08:55] This is our
[1:08:59] finance Committee report and
[1:09:03] so Chair Davis, if you are
[1:09:05] ready.
[1:09:26] Cindy Davis: That was a fast
[1:09:26] transition. I'm ready.
[1:09:29] Good morning everybody! I'm
[1:09:32] grateful to be here to talk
[1:09:33] about our finance committee.
[1:09:35] And, we will start with agenda
[1:09:40] item 3.2, we have a motion for
[1:09:44] the board that the board add
[1:09:47] in a ten year phase in plan
[1:09:49] for the additional WP use for
[1:09:51] the Sped self-contained
[1:09:52] funding formula funding request as previously passed
[1:09:55] by the board.
[1:10:03] Matt Hymas: So the motion is
[1:10:03] that the board add in a ten
[1:10:04] year phase in plan for the
[1:10:05] additional WP use for Sped
[1:10:07] self-contained funding formula
[1:10:09] funding request.
[1:10:13] We have a question from Vice
[1:10:17] Chair Bollinger?
[1:10:20] Amanda Bollinger: Thank you chair if I may through you for
[1:10:23] our chair of the Finance
[1:10:24] Committee can you help me to understand why it's a ten year
[1:10:26] phase in? I'm wondering how
[1:10:28] that compares to the at risk
[1:10:29] phase in?
[1:10:30] Cindy Davis: The comparison question is a great question.
[1:10:34] But the ten year phase in plan
[1:10:36] was simply because it was a
[1:10:38] large ask. It was an $89
[1:10:40] million ask, and that would be
[1:10:42] ongoing money. So we felt like
[1:10:46] to have a phase in that didn't
[1:10:48] necessarily have to be adopted, but one that was
[1:10:50] prepared that could be
[1:10:51] considered might increase the
[1:10:53] likelihood of the legislature
[1:10:56] being able to look long term at meeting the increasing
[1:11:01] needs of our students who are
[1:11:02] considered self-contained,
[1:11:04] which is 180 minutes or more
[1:11:05] or more per day in special Ed.
[1:11:07] The second portion, I may need
[1:11:09] to ask someone else. I know there was a phase in, but I
[1:11:12] don't think it's that long.
[1:11:14] Amanda Bollinger: If I may follow up I'm wondering if there's anybody from staff
[1:11:17] that can answer what the phase
[1:11:18] in for the at risk was?
[1:11:22] Oh it was also ten years?
[1:11:25] Okay. Thank you. That's what I needed to know and thank you
[1:11:27] for your work on this. This is obviously something that I'm
[1:11:30] really passionate about, and
[1:11:31] I'm excited to see this request come through. Thank
[1:11:33] you.
[1:11:34] Cindy Davis: Thank you and I
[1:11:37] sit corrected on that at risk
[1:11:38] timeline. And next the board,
[1:11:40] we also moved out a couple of
[1:11:41] the other funding requests,
[1:11:43] but those were exactly how
[1:11:45] they were last year, so they are already in the list for
[1:11:48] consideration by the board.
[1:11:51] Next we have the board approve
[1:11:54] our two seven --
[1:11:59] Matt Hymas: Hold on we haven't
[1:12:01] taken action on that motion yet and we've got another
[1:12:03] question by vice Chair Wood.
[1:12:18] >> Thank you just a quick
[1:12:18] question is there anything that will guarantee that this
[1:12:18] is new money? The greatest
[1:12:19] thing I've seen with at risk
[1:12:20] is that we kind of rob Peter
[1:12:22] to pay Paul so we've created
[1:12:23] holes in K through three literacy funding or elementary
[1:12:26] counseling funding, they took those out just so they could
[1:12:29] fund the at risk funding, is
[1:12:31] there any way that we could
[1:12:33] reserve other programs? And
[1:12:36] ask that this be new money? Or
[1:12:38] is this just a simple, phased
[1:12:40] in slowly.
[1:12:42] >> It's just a simple phased
[1:12:43] in slowly because all of our
[1:12:46] requests theoretically are
[1:12:48] requesting new money. But the
[1:12:50] legislature as of late has
[1:12:52] asked us to find other things
[1:12:56] that could be cut to fund
[1:12:58] different priorities. So, I
[1:13:02] wouldn't be honest if I
[1:13:03] guarantee that that wouldn't
[1:13:04] happen again.
[1:13:07] Matt Hymas: Okay, seeing no
[1:13:09] additional light let's restate
[1:13:10] the motion here and that is that the board add in a ten
[1:13:12] year phase in plan for the
[1:13:13] additional WP use for Sped
[1:13:16] self-contained funding formula
[1:13:17] funding request. Let's go
[1:13:19] ahead and vote.
[1:13:23] [Members voting]
[1:13:37] Matt Hymas: Okay that passes unanimously with two absent.
[1:13:38] Back to you Chair Davis.
[1:13:40] Cindy Davis: Thank you. Item
[1:13:44] 3.3 there's a motion for the
[1:13:44] board that the board approve R
[1:13:45] 277462, comprehensive school counseling program draft one
[1:13:51] on second and final reading.
[1:13:54] Matt Hymas: The motion before
[1:13:56] the board is that the board
[1:13:56] approve R 277462 comprehensive
[1:13:59] School counseling program,
[1:14:00] draft one on the second and
[1:14:02] final reading. Seeing no
[1:14:04] lights.
[1:14:06] Cindy Davis: I have one, we just did ask in committee for
[1:14:09] some additional information on
[1:14:11] time frames before the full
[1:14:12] board voted. And I think that
[1:14:15] either Chris Ann Lewis or
[1:14:16] specialist Bethany Marker.
[1:14:21] If we want to hear just
[1:14:23] quickly. What that information
[1:14:26] on the time frame is.
[1:14:33] Matt Hymas: Welcome to the
[1:14:33] table. And please.
[1:14:42] >> Hi, I'm Bethany Marker, the
[1:14:42] school counseling specialist.
[1:14:42] And we were asked to see if
[1:14:44] this funding could be every
[1:14:45] three years instead of
[1:14:47] annually. And we went back and
[1:14:49] got some advice, and it is
[1:14:51] annually. So the only way to
[1:14:53] change the funding to three
[1:14:54] years would be to change it in
[1:14:55] Utah code.
[1:15:02] Cindy Davis:
[1:15:02] Okay.
[1:15:02] Matt Hymas: Okay. We have a
[1:15:05] comment from Vice Chair Bollinger.
[1:15:06] Amanda Bollinger: Thank you
[1:15:10] chair and I had a chance to listen to this discussion and
[1:15:11] as a user of Utah grants I can understand typically Utah
[1:15:14] grants is just to understand that the funding is allocated
[1:15:16] for this year and used for this year's students. So I
[1:15:18] actually support the annual, I
[1:15:19] know that you guys were really trying to reduce the reports
[1:15:21] and requirements, but, we do
[1:15:24] the same thing with several of our grants, and that's just a
[1:15:26] way of tracking it easier. So
[1:15:28] there is a benefit to doing it
[1:15:30] annually, so I do support the
[1:15:32] one year.
[1:15:38] Matt Hymas:
[1:15:38] Okay. Chair Davis back to
[1:15:46] you.
Cindy Davis: That is the way it's
[1:15:46] written in the motion.
[1:15:46] Matt Hymas: Okay so the motion
[1:15:49] before the board is that we approve draft one on second
[1:15:50] and final reading. Seeing no
[1:15:51] lights let's go ahead and
[1:15:52] vote.
[1:15:58] [Members voting]
[1:16:08] Matt Hymas:
[1:16:08] That passes 12 in favor one
[1:16:09] opposed and two absent. The
[1:16:12] opposing vote coming from Member Boggess back to you
[1:16:14] Chair Davis.
[1:16:15] Cindy Davis: Thank you. The
[1:16:19] committee moves to the board
[1:16:19] approve our 27-1 ten educator
[1:16:20] salary adjustment draft one on
[1:16:21] the second and final reading.
[1:16:23] Matt Hymas: Thank you the motion before the board is
[1:16:27] that the board approve
[1:16:27] R27-00120 educator salary adjustment draft one on the
[1:16:31] second and final reading.
[1:16:32] Seeing no lights, let's vote.
[1:16:38] [Members voting]
[1:16:51] Matt Hymas: Okay that passes
[1:16:51] 12 in favor one opposed that
[1:16:53] opposition coming from Member Boggess back to you Chair
[1:16:55] Davis.
[1:16:57] Cindy Davis: Thank you. The
[1:17:00] committee moves that the board
[1:17:00] approve R 277626 Carson Smith
[1:17:03] scholarship funding and procedures draft one on the
[1:17:05] second and final reading.
[1:17:08] Matt Hymas: Thank you the motion before the board is
[1:17:10] that the board approve R27-626 Carson Smith scholarship
[1:17:14] funding and procedures draft
[1:17:15] one on the second and final
[1:17:16] reading. Seeing no lights let's vote.
[1:17:22] [Members voting]
[1:17:35] Matt Hymas:
[1:17:37] That passes 13 in favor one
[1:17:40] opposed one absent. That opposition coming from Member
[1:17:42] Kerry. Back to you Chair Davis.
[1:17:47] Cindy Davis: Thank you. Item 3.6 the committee moves that
[1:17:50] the board continue to approve
[1:17:51] R 27445 classifying small
[1:17:53] schools as necessarily existent draft one on second
[1:17:56] and final reading.
[1:17:59] Matt Hymas: Thank you, the motion is that the board
[1:18:01] continue and approve R 277445
[1:18:04] classifying small schools as
[1:18:07] necessarily existent, draft
[1:18:09] one on second and final
[1:18:10] reading. Seeing no lights
[1:18:13] let's vote.
[1:18:20] [Members voting]
[1:18:43] Matt Hymas:
[1:18:43] 110.. Sorry let's finish this
[1:18:44] vote on R 277445, I need one
[1:18:49] more. O. Okay. That passes unanimously then with two
[1:18:54] absent. The question was there
[1:18:57] was a question, did we vote on
[1:18:59] 3.4? This is our 27-110
[1:19:02] educator salary adjustment, I
[1:19:04] do believe we did that and it
[1:19:05] passed.
[1:19:07] With one opposed. Okay. Back
[1:19:11] to you Chair Davis.
[1:19:17] Cindy Davis:
[1:19:20] Thank you. Item 3.7 the
[1:19:24] committee moves that the board
[1:19:25] continue and approve R 2774
[1:19:27] 60, distribution of substance
[1:19:29] abuse prevention account. Draft one. On second and final
[1:19:33] reading.
[1:19:33] Matt Hymas: The motion before
[1:19:37] the board is that the board
[1:19:38] continue and approve R 277460,
[1:19:43] distribution of substance
[1:19:44] abuse prevention account,
[1:19:47] draft one on the second and
[1:19:48] final reading. Member Earl?
[1:20:08] Jennie Earl: This question
[1:20:08] might be better during our
[1:20:08] legislative request, but I'm
[1:20:10] just wondering if we can add
[1:20:11] something to our legislative
[1:20:13] it seems to be focused on one
[1:20:15] program, the law seems to be
[1:20:16] written for that program. So
[1:20:18] maybe it's not here, because
[1:20:20] we have to adhere to whatever's currently in law,
[1:20:22] but maybe if we could just
[1:20:23] make a note of that? Just to
[1:20:25] kind of look at that law and
[1:20:27] make sure that we are capturing some of the best
[1:20:29] programs out there? So. Thank
[1:20:31] you.
[1:20:35] Matt Hymas:
[1:20:35] Thank you, Member Green?
[1:20:44] >> Yes I just wanted to
[1:20:44] clarify on line 89 just the
[1:20:44] change end of year report
[1:20:44] section one shall, we had an A
[1:20:48] B and C there. I'm just
[1:20:50] wondering if or what the
[1:20:52] change was for to take out A B
[1:20:54] and c? And if we felt that 92, the change which is account
[1:20:59] for the use of funds and
[1:21:01] include data demonstrating the
[1:21:03] effectiveness of the LEAs use
[1:21:05] of those funds, did we feel
[1:21:08] like the A, b, and C specific
[1:21:13] things were not feasible? Or
[1:21:15] what was the goal of that
[1:21:17] change? Just so I understand? I don't know who can answer
[1:21:21] that.
[1:21:24] Matt Hymas: Yeah. Line 92
[1:21:26] Chair Davis are you going to
[1:21:26] tackle that question or
[1:21:27] attempt to?
[1:21:33] Cindy Davis:
[1:21:33] Thank you.
[1:21:36] Okay pick that again, it was
[1:21:38] the attempt of reducing the
[1:21:40] reporting requirements, and
[1:21:43] actually in past years, this
[1:21:45] was in the assurance document.
[1:21:47] And it was taken out. So we
[1:21:49] currently don't have any
[1:21:50] reporting on this.
[1:21:53] And there is a task force
[1:21:57] that's working with the
[1:21:57] Department of Health Services, and also our specialists came
[1:22:02] to our reports task force last
[1:22:04] week to talk about ideas of ways to get the information
[1:22:08] that we need when legislators
[1:22:11] ask without adding more formal
[1:22:15] reports. I will give you an example. Like for example when
[1:22:19] they apply for the materials
[1:22:19] for the next year. Then they
[1:22:22] put in how many students were
[1:22:23] taught the year prior, in
[1:22:26] which grades and such, rather
[1:22:28] than having an administrator removed from that teacher who
[1:22:31] is requesting the materials going back and trying to
[1:22:34] gather all of the information
[1:22:35] and adding it to the reports.
[1:22:37] Another thing is honestly,
[1:22:41] if they're not seeking the
[1:22:43] materials which are by law
[1:22:44] required to teach in the schools, then we may need to
[1:22:47] consider a corrective action
[1:22:48] plan.
[1:22:50] Not as an over the head, but just as a way to help people
[1:22:55] understand that this is
[1:22:56] expected to be taught.
[1:23:04] Matt Hymas:
[1:23:04] Okay so the motion before us
[1:23:04] is that the board continue on
[1:23:05] approve R277-460 distribution
[1:23:08] of substance abuse prevention
[1:23:10] account, draft one on the
[1:23:11] second and final reading.
[1:23:14] Seeing no additional lights let's go ahead and vote.
[1:23:21] [Members voting]
[1:23:34] Matt Hymas: That passes
[1:23:34] unanimously with one absent.
[1:23:34] Back to you Chair Davis.
[1:23:37] Cindy Davis: Is item 3.8 the committee moves that the board
[1:23:40] repeal R277-486, professional
[1:23:43] staff program on the second
[1:23:45] and final reading because the
[1:23:46] legislature repealed.
[1:23:50] Matt Hymas: Thank you the motion before the board is
[1:23:52] that the board repeal R 277486 professional staff program on
[1:23:56] the second and final reading. Seeing no lights let's vote.
[1:24:04] [Members voting]
[1:24:13] Matt Hymas: Thank you that
[1:24:13] passes unanimously. Chair Davis?
[1:24:14] Cindy Davis: Thank you. Item 3.9 the committee moves that
[1:24:18] the board approve R277-108,
[1:24:20] annual assurance of compliance
[1:24:22] for local education agencies draft two on the second and
[1:24:25] final reading.
[1:24:26] Matt Hymas: The motion is that
[1:24:30] the board approve R277-108,
[1:24:32] annual assurance of compliance
[1:24:33] for Local education agencies,
[1:24:36] draft two on second and final
[1:24:38] reading. Seeing no lights
[1:24:40] let's vote.
[1:24:45] [Members voting]
[1:25:04] Matt Hymas: It passes
[1:25:04] unanimously. Chair Davis?
[1:25:10] Cindy Davis:
[1:25:10] Thank you. Item 3.1, the committee moves that the board
[1:25:12] approve R 277465
[1:25:14] cardiopulmonary resuscitation
[1:25:16] CPR in schools draft one on
[1:25:18] the second and final reading.
[1:25:21] Matt Hymas: The motion is that
[1:25:25] the board approved R 277465
[1:25:27] cardiopulmonary resuscitation
[1:25:28] in schools, draft one on the
[1:25:30] second and final reading.
[1:25:32] Let's vote.
[1:25:39] [Members voting]
[1:25:48] Matt Hymas:
[1:25:48] That passes unanimously. Chair
[1:25:51] Davis?
[1:25:56] Cindy Davis:
[1:25:56] Yes thank you. Item 3.11.
[1:26:03] I think that motion language
[1:26:05] is going to pop up here but
[1:26:07] the committee moves that the
[1:26:08] board approve R 277927 teacher
[1:26:11] and Student Success Act TSSA
[1:26:15] program draft two on the
[1:26:18] second and final reading. And
[1:26:20] make a statutory request to
[1:26:21] reflect the phase in timeline
[1:26:23] of the draft into code.
[1:26:29] Matt Hymas:
[1:26:29] Chair Davis. Did that and come
[1:26:33] out of committee?
[1:26:38] Cindy Davis: It did but in a separate
[1:26:38] motion and we can find those
[1:26:40] here it was your motion
[1:26:41] actually to request we request
[1:26:43] the timeline be added to code, not just in board rule.
[1:26:49] Matt Hymas: It's just not on
[1:26:51] my --
[1:26:53] Cindy Davis: Instead of making
[1:26:56] two motions I just asked him
[1:26:56] to put it into this one. Also because we don't technically have to bring that part to the
[1:26:59] board,
[1:27:01] that request can be added to
[1:27:04] the other policy requests. But
[1:27:06] just to be clear since it was
[1:27:08] such a long discussion, I just
[1:27:11] added your motion into this
[1:27:12] motion.
[1:27:15] Matt Hymas: Just making sure
[1:27:17] we got everything in order here because the motion is
[1:27:17] that the board approve R
[1:27:18] 277927, teacher and Student
[1:27:22] Success Act TSSA program draft
[1:27:26] two on the second final reading and make a statutory
[1:27:29] request to reflect the
[1:27:30] phase-in timeline of the draft into code.
[1:27:33] Cindy Davis: And we can vote on those separately if you
[1:27:37] prefer Chair.
[1:27:37] Matt Hymas: If this works this
[1:27:42] works for me. I don't see
[1:27:42] anybody throwing hands up. Nobody's throwing hands.
[1:27:44] (laughs) so let's go ahead and
[1:27:48] vote on this.
[1:27:52] [Members voting]
[1:28:33] Matt Hymas: That passes 11 in
[1:28:33] favor two abstentions, one no. Back to you Chair Davis.
[1:28:38] Cindy Davis: Thank you item
[1:28:42] 3.1,
[1:28:50] (Indiscernible)
[1:28:50] Matt Hymas: The motion before the board is that the board
[1:28:51] approve board policy 5007
[1:28:52] trust lands Advisory Committee draft two on second and final
[1:28:56] reading. Member Boggess?
[1:29:12] Christina Boggess: I thought we amended this in committee
[1:29:12] in particular it became draft two.
[1:29:14] Cindy Davis: Whereas draft two?
[1:29:19] Christina Boggess: We added
[1:29:22] some words.
[1:29:22] Matt Hymas: It says draft one still.
[1:29:27] Christina Boggess: That's
[1:29:31] where my confusion is coming
[1:29:31] from because it says draft
[1:29:31] one.
[1:29:33] Matt Hymas: And there are no
[1:29:37] changes to draft one. Or there
[1:29:37] is a change on --
[1:29:40] Cindy Davis: Member Boggess
[1:29:44] amended to replace the words
[1:29:44] task force to working group
[1:29:45] and that passed unanimously. We could vote on that
[1:29:49] separately here if that would
[1:29:52] be helpful to amend that draft
[1:29:54] that is back up.
[1:30:03] Matt Hymas: I'm fine with whatever we want to do we've
[1:30:03] already voted on it with committee, I'd like to have
[1:30:05] what came out of committee,
[1:30:06] can we at least put it on the
[1:30:07] screen? Draft two wasn't like a whole revision.
[1:30:10] Christina Boggess: No I think
[1:30:15] it had minor changes but in particular
[1:30:20] [Cross-Talk]
[1:30:20] >> I've got your motion language right here.
[1:30:20] Matt Hymas: If we've got the
[1:30:24] motion language Chair Davis
[1:30:24] and if we could put it up on the screen that would be helpful to the public and the
[1:30:25] rest of the board members.
[1:30:28] Cindy Davis: Okay. Can the committee Member Kelley made
[1:30:31] the motion to pass draft one
[1:30:32] and the Member amended that
[1:30:34] the committee amend board
[1:30:35] policy 5007 to replace task
[1:30:39] forces in part two a v with
[1:30:45] working Group. Oh, it's there
[1:30:48] on the board. And that passed
[1:30:49] unanimously.
[1:31:00] Matt Hymas: And from what I
[1:31:00] understand the rest of the policy did not change. That
[1:31:01] was the only change made.
[1:31:02] Cindy Davis: If I remember
[1:31:07] correctly. After that draft
[1:31:07] one passing. Yes. That's all I
[1:31:11] have documented here.
[1:31:18] Matt Hymas:
[1:31:18] Okay. So -- we see the motion
[1:31:19] that made draft one into draft
[1:31:21] two. I don't see any lights,
[1:31:23] so I'm going to restate the
[1:31:25] motion that came from
[1:31:27] committee, and that is that the board approved board
[1:31:29] policy 5007, trust Lands
[1:31:32] Advisory Committee draft two on second and final reading.
[1:31:35] Let's vote.
[1:31:40] [Members voting]
[1:31:53] Matt Hymas:
[1:31:53] That passes unanimously back
[1:31:54] to you Chair Davis.
[1:31:57] Cindy Davis: Thank you I would encourage the board if they
[1:32:00] can to listen to the last part of the meeting to listen for
[1:32:02] updates on Utrecht, the
[1:32:04] minimum school program,
[1:32:05] awesome achievements, in Utah grants so many changes are
[1:32:09] happening. So often that those
[1:32:13] updates are really helpful
[1:32:16] when you get questions on Usms
[1:32:18] and Utrecht and Utah grants
[1:32:20] and all of that. It's a really nice constant summary. That
[1:32:24] concludes our report. Thank
[1:32:25] you Chair.
[1:32:28] Matt Hymas: Thank you. With
[1:32:29] that let's move forward to
[1:32:30] agenda item four. Our Standards and Assessment
[1:32:33] Committee report. Chair Earl?
[1:32:44] Jennie Earl: Thank you. Our
[1:32:45] first item is -- let me get to
[1:32:46] the motion. The motion for the
[1:32:48] board is that the board
[1:32:49] approve R 27733 for classroom
[1:32:52] technology draft two on the
[1:32:54] second and final reading. And
[1:32:56] I do have two amendments. For that.
[1:32:59] Matt Hymas: Okay. Let's get
[1:33:02] the motion out there and then I will turn it back to you.
[1:33:04] The motion that came out of
[1:33:05] committee is that the board
[1:33:06] approve R 277334, classroom
[1:33:09] technology draft two on the second and final reading. Back
[1:33:13] to you Chair Earl.
[1:33:16] Jennie Earl: Okay I would like
[1:33:17] to add a definition that is in
[1:33:18] code, and it's high risk
[1:33:20] artificial intelligence in our
[1:33:22] action.
[1:33:23] That will be right around line 49, if you did alphabetical
[1:33:28] order it would add a new line
[1:33:29] there I knew definition. And that means the same as that
[1:33:32] term is defined in section
[1:33:34] 1377101. And, that's the same location where you have the
[1:33:41] definition for generative
[1:33:42] artificial intelligence. So,
[1:33:44] this is what's considered high
[1:33:46] risk artificial intelligence.
[1:33:48] So let me just make this one motion, because it's these two
[1:33:52] pieces that go together and then I'll make another
[1:33:54] amendment that's separate. And then come with that I would
[1:33:57] add on line 203 or below that,
[1:34:02] so it would be 204, a new
[1:34:05] section eight that says high risk artificial intelligence
[1:34:07] interaction may not be used
[1:34:09] with students.
[1:34:13] That would be what my
[1:34:16] amendment is.
[1:34:21] Matt Hymas: Okay so the motion then that
[1:34:23] has been seconded is to add a
[1:34:25] definition on line 49 stating
[1:34:27] high risk artificial
[1:34:28] intelligence interaction means
[1:34:30] the same as that term as
[1:34:33] defined in section 1377101
[1:34:39] and to add after line 203 high
[1:34:45] risk artificial intelligence
[1:34:47] interaction may not be used .
[1:34:55] Jennie Earl: I'll speak to that I'll just give you the
[1:34:56] definition of high risk artificial intelligence
[1:34:58] interaction it's a generative artificial intelligence that
[1:35:00] involves the collection of
[1:35:01] personal information including
[1:35:03] health data, financial data, or biometric data. The
[1:35:06] provision of personalized
[1:35:08] recommendations advice or information that could
[1:35:12] reasonably be relied upon to
[1:35:13] make significant personal
[1:35:14] decisions including the provision of financial advice
[1:35:17] and services com A legal
[1:35:18] advice and services, medical advice and services or mental
[1:35:21] health advice and services.
[1:35:23] And then it says or other
[1:35:25] applicable defined by the
[1:35:27] division rule
[1:35:30] so, this is not, I think as we
[1:35:33] move into the AI field, I
[1:35:35] think we need to be cautious
[1:35:36] about just opening up broadly.
[1:35:39] And this high risk piece until we have a better understanding
[1:35:43] of what is or isn't
[1:35:45] appropriate. I don't think that we should be stepping
[1:35:48] into that. Especially with
[1:35:49] students.
[1:35:58] Matt Hymas:
[1:35:58] Yeah. If we can get that on
[1:35:59] the screen. And then, Vice
[1:36:03] Chair Bollinger has a
[1:36:04] question.
[1:36:08] Amanda Bollinger:
[1:36:11] Matt Hymas: Maybe if go ahead and.
[1:36:14] Amanda Bollinger:
[1:36:14] Thanks chair as I go back and look at this when I'm looking
[1:36:17] at the definition the code that you're looking at the definition actually has to do
[1:36:20] with consumer disclosures and
[1:36:21] enforcement, so when I look at
[1:36:23] the definition and it says you
[1:36:24] can't collect health data,
[1:36:26] financial data, biometrics, I
[1:36:28] thought in our rule there was
[1:36:29] already a piece that they couldn't do any of the
[1:36:31] biometric piece which would
[1:36:33] not be applicable with the use of AI in education, so I'm
[1:36:36] wondering why we're using
[1:36:36] consumer code in education code.
[1:36:43] Jennie Earl:
[1:36:43] We're already using the consumer code if you just look
[1:36:45] up one definition of where I'm putting this a couple
[1:36:46] definitions, we are already
[1:36:48] using that code to define
[1:36:50] generative.
[1:36:55] Amanda Bollinger:
[1:36:55] So in education is there the
[1:36:57] use of high risk intelligence interactions? Because we do
[1:37:00] use the other piece that you're talking about
[1:37:02] generative AI. But is this
[1:37:04] even used in education.
[1:37:11] Jennie Earl:
[1:37:11] That's the point right? That we shouldn't until we have a
[1:37:12] grasp on what is appropriate.
[1:37:14] So yeah I'm high risk, I don't
[1:37:15] think we should be using
[1:37:23] that.
Amanda
[1:37:23] Bollinger: I understand what you're saying, because we
[1:37:23] could apply code for all sorts
[1:37:23] of things but I'm just not
[1:37:26] sure if it's --
[1:37:31] Jennie Earl: Well then we'd also have to go
[1:37:31] back and modify other things here come because you see what
[1:37:33] I'm saying? We're also using
[1:37:34] that same definition for generative artificial
[1:37:37] intelligence from the same
[1:37:38] code area. Then we'll need to
[1:37:40] spend a little time and find
[1:37:43] some other definitions and
[1:37:45] these are in code they are spelled out they've gone
[1:37:48] through the legislative process I think they're a wise
[1:37:51] thing to use things that
[1:37:52] they're saying be cautious of
[1:37:53] these because these are high risk areas
[1:37:59] Amanda Bollinger:.
[1:37:59] One more follow up generative
[1:38:00] AI is used in the code, in the
[1:38:02] AI code for education.
[1:38:08] Or is that not in code. For education AI.
[1:38:16] Jennie Earl:
[1:38:16] No it's not in the education
[1:38:17] code from last year.
[1:38:20] Generative AI is but for the
[1:38:24] high risk though we're clarifying on the high risk piece.
[1:38:31] Matt Hymas: Member Davis?
[1:38:36] Cindy Davis:
[1:38:36] Would it be possible, is it a time sensitive issue to bring
[1:38:38] this back again next month or
[1:38:39] even tomorrow? So we can get
[1:38:42] some clarity from our AI
[1:38:44] expert? For those of us who
[1:38:45] aren't AI experts?
[1:38:49] Jennie Earl: I'm personally fine with it coming back tomorrow, I think it probably
[1:38:52] needs to be our model policy
[1:38:54] will be framed around this I don't know if we can wait
[1:38:55] another month maybe we can?
[1:38:57] We've got to get going on the
[1:38:59] model policy as some of that.
[1:39:05] Cindy Davis:
[1:39:05] So I moved to postpone this to tomorrow.
[1:39:10] Matt Hymas:
[1:39:10] So there's a move to postpone
[1:39:12] this to tomorrow's unfinished business, do we have
[1:39:16] unfinished business? We
[1:39:17] usually do. Yeah so to
[1:39:19] tomorrow's unfinished business. Do we have a second?
[1:39:21] I'm not hearing a second so let's keep the discussion
[1:39:23] going. Okay. Seeing no additional lights come on let
[1:39:28] me restate the motion. The motion is to add a definition
[1:39:32] on line 49 high risk intelligence it means the same
[1:39:38] as that term is defined in
[1:39:39] section 1377-101. And to add
[1:39:44] after line 203 high risk
[1:39:48] artificial intelligence interaction may not be used
[1:39:50] with students. I see no
[1:39:53] additional lights, so let's go
[1:39:54] ahead and vote.
[1:40:15] [Members voting]
[1:40:24] Matt Hymas: That motion passes
[1:40:25] it's not a potion. Passes
[1:40:27] eight in favor two abstention, five no votes, abstentions are
[1:40:31] from Vice Chair Wood and
[1:40:31] Member Davis, the no votes are
[1:40:33] from Member Lear Member Boothe Member Reale and Member Hymas,
[1:40:36] Member Bollinger. Go ahead
[1:40:39] Member Davis?
[1:40:44] Cindy Davis:
[1:40:46] Matt Hymas: Member Earl made that
[1:40:47] amendment.
[1:40:50] Cindy Davis: I'm trying to
[1:40:51] figure out all the things she just said.
[1:40:53] Matt Hymas: Don't put the
[1:40:55] amendment -- e. Chair well
[1:40:59] I've got a couple of lights, but there's no motion well
[1:41:03] there is a motion before us.
[1:41:04] Member Green? Go ahead.
[1:41:10] Emily Green: Maybe this is for
[1:41:12] our AI tech, in retrospect now
[1:41:14] that we've voted on this, what
[1:41:16] we just voted on, can we actually do that? Is that even
[1:41:19] possible? Is it wishful
[1:41:20] thinking? But can we actually
[1:41:23] do that?
[1:41:26] Can we actually not -- is
[1:41:30] there a way that we don't use
[1:41:32] high risk artificial
[1:41:33] intelligence if we have high
[1:41:36] risk artificial intelligence
[1:41:38] interaction? Like is there a
[1:41:40] way to separate that? I'm just
[1:41:42] wondering. I don't know if anyone can
[1:41:46] help us.
[1:41:50] Matt Hymas: Member Brinton?
[1:42:03] What's her title? Assistant Superintendent hunt. Yeah you
[1:42:09] said it right. I forgot it. In
[1:42:12] the 10s that it transferred.
[1:42:15] Let's get that light pressed.
[1:42:18] There you go.
 >> You can call me ruler of
[1:42:20] the universe, that would be
[1:42:22] just fine.
[1:42:24] So, one of the things that's
[1:42:26] involved with this particular
[1:42:28] rule right now is that there
[1:42:30] are two portions that are going to be happening with
[1:42:32] this. The first is the rule
[1:42:34] itself and the updates that
[1:42:35] are coming as part of this new
[1:42:37] HB 273. The follow up piece
[1:42:41] will be coming to Standards
[1:42:42] and Assessment next this next
[1:42:46] -- in September. It includes a
[1:42:48] model policy that goes through and explains what all of these
[1:42:51] are and the rules, it explains
[1:42:53] how they impact LEAs and the
[1:42:55] decisions that they are making around artificial
[1:42:58] intelligence. So these definitions that you're seeing
[1:43:01] are coming directly from
[1:43:02] either that bill, or from
[1:43:04] federal legislation around
[1:43:06] high risk artificial
[1:43:07] intelligence. The bill itself
[1:43:11] is not very prescriptive when
[1:43:12] it comes to what can and
[1:43:15] cannot be used. But, what is
[1:43:17] there is the understanding
[1:43:19] that LEA are very specifically
[1:43:22] expressing and sharing with
[1:43:23] parents what they are using
[1:43:26] and how they are using it. So
[1:43:27] I think when you see the model
[1:43:29] policy, you will see that it
[1:43:31] does a really good job of going through and explaining
[1:43:33] to districts how they address
[1:43:35] these issues, and who they
[1:43:38] need to include in sharing
[1:43:40] information about the ways and
[1:43:42] the types of artificial intelligence that are being
[1:43:46] used in their LEAs. So, I
[1:43:49] don't know, I just want to get
[1:43:51] a little bit of clarification
[1:43:52] on your question. Board
[1:43:54] member, I'm not sure that I understand what you're asking
[1:43:58] about the difference between
[1:43:59] generative artificial
[1:44:00] intelligence and generative
[1:44:02] artificial intelligence use.
[1:44:08] Matt Hymas: Member Green?
[1:44:09] Emily Green: I appreciate that question. I think I'm
[1:44:13] wondering -- where did our
[1:44:15] -- it's the high risk. Can we
[1:44:19] bring up the motion? Sorry.
[1:44:22] Thank you.
[1:44:25] So, we added a definition on
[1:44:27] line 49.
[1:44:31] Defining high risk artificial
[1:44:33] intelligence interactions. And
[1:44:36] then, we put that as defined
[1:44:38] in that section. We added
[1:44:41] after line 203 high risk
[1:44:44] artificial intelligence
[1:44:45] interaction may not be used
[1:44:47] with students.
[1:44:52] So, it seems that schools are
[1:44:54] using high risk artificial
[1:44:56] intelligence interactions and
[1:44:59] what you're saying is LEAs
[1:45:02] should have or create model
[1:45:04] policies on what that looks
[1:45:06] like, correct? And how they
[1:45:10] are going to address that, and
[1:45:13] in doing so, by adding that
[1:45:17] may not be used with students, I'm just wondering I guess
[1:45:23] again, is that possible? So if
[1:45:26] they are using that, is there a way that they build that
[1:45:29] into the AI systems at large?
[1:45:33] Where they know specifically
[1:45:36] what not to use because of
[1:45:37] students? Do we have any examples of somebody that's
[1:45:42] doing that right now?
[1:45:49] >> I don't have specific examples from LEAs that might
[1:45:50] be using high risk artificial
[1:45:51] intelligence. At this point,
[1:45:54] what the code calls for is for
[1:45:57] LEAs to be very transparent
[1:46:00] about what is being used, and
[1:46:02] how it is being used. In the
[1:46:05] model policy that you'll be
[1:46:06] seeing after it moves through Standards and assessment
[1:46:08] committee, we have some examples come in we have lists
[1:46:11] of things that would be
[1:46:15] considered high risk. Can we
[1:46:17] have some examples of parent communications and how those would be communicated to
[1:46:21] parents. And we have charts
[1:46:24] that describe and explain that
[1:46:26] certain types of AI cannot be
[1:46:28] used with students. So, I
[1:46:31] think that it will help to be
[1:46:32] able to see that guidance and support around the model
[1:46:35] policy. The code actually
[1:46:37] really relies on the LEAs. To
[1:46:39] determine this. But, it is
[1:46:42] very clear that it needs to be
[1:46:44] explicitly explained and
[1:46:47] included in a policy that is
[1:46:49] voted at the local level.
[1:46:55] Emily Green: Okay. Thank you.
[1:46:57] Matt Hymas: Thank you. Member Earl?
[1:47:01] Jennie Earl: I just want to
[1:47:03] parse this out a little bit more one of the primary
[1:47:05] differences is you're asking
[1:47:06] the high risk piece.
[1:47:08] Matt Hymas: Can I just
[1:47:10] clarify, we've already voted on the high risk piece. It's
[1:47:13] in there.
[1:47:15] Jennie Earl: I thought we were trying to parse out that
[1:47:19] generative AI piece it's a piece of that. But you can
[1:47:21] talk to me about it later. [Cross-Talk]
[1:47:25] Matt Hymas: Yeah. Okay. Let's
[1:47:28] -- no, you're good.
[1:47:30] Adjournment time is seven. And
[1:47:32] I've got a goal to beat that. So come let's do it. Joe, don't throw out good luck in
[1:47:39] there. Okay, Jennie, go ahead.
[1:47:50] Jennie Earl: This time? Okay, I would like to amend line I
[1:47:54] think it's 232. I had 234 on my paper but I think it's
[1:47:58] incorrect. And it says in LEA
[1:48:01] may provide accommodations or
[1:48:03] supports, and I would like to
[1:48:05] add in there leading to
[1:48:07] meaningful instruction,
[1:48:09] including, in other words just
[1:48:11] providing an accommodation because I mean it has to be
[1:48:15] meaningful. If parent or
[1:48:18] somebody chooses not to engage in some kind of academic
[1:48:22] process because they don't
[1:48:24] want to use generative AI or
[1:48:25] something, the academic piece,
[1:48:28] I'm speaking to it if I get a
[1:48:30] second. You didn't call me on
[1:48:32] that.
[1:48:34] Matt Hymas: I know I didn't
[1:48:36] I'm sorry. It's because I got
[1:48:37] shamed last time I did. So,
[1:48:39] the motion then is to add,
[1:48:42] after line 234 and they may
[1:48:47] provide accommodations or
[1:48:48] supports leading to accommodation including -- and
[1:48:52] it's been seconded back to you
[1:48:54] Member Earl to speak to that.
[1:48:57] Jennie Earl: Yeah once again
[1:48:58] if a student is given that accommodation or additional
[1:49:00] supports, should actually be meaningful instruction, and
[1:49:03] not just a
[1:49:07] -- like you're not going to do
[1:49:08] this with the class okay then
[1:49:09] well, go do a crossword puzzle
[1:49:12] or something. So it's just
[1:49:14] making sure that it's meaningful to the
[1:49:16] accommodation.
[1:49:17] Matt Hymas: Vice Chair
[1:49:19] Bollinger? O Member Longacre go ahead then Vice Chair
[1:49:23] Bollinger.
[1:49:36] Erin Longacre: I'm just
[1:49:36] wondering does that mean they could say like if you don't do
[1:49:39] this assignment you're going
[1:49:40] to get a zero?
[1:49:43] Matt Hymas: I don't know why
[1:49:45] they wouldn't are you leading us into a right of conscious
[1:49:47] discussion? Okay. It does say
[1:49:50] may encode.
[1:50:00] Follow up Member Longacre?
[1:50:03] There you go.
[1:50:04] Erin Longacre: Am I making
[1:50:07] myself clear? I'm just saying
[1:50:08] if a parent chooses to opt out
[1:50:11] of an assignment that uses AI,
[1:50:14] does the teacher have the
[1:50:17] option to say
[1:50:18] well -- I'm not going to provide another assignment
[1:50:23] this is the assignment.
[1:50:26] Matt Hymas: I think we are in
[1:50:29] a different discussion here. We are in a right of conscious
[1:50:34] discussion. Because that right
[1:50:36] of conscience is applicable
[1:50:38] for all of these. Whether it's
[1:50:40] AI or health or any other right? So I don't know if we
[1:50:46] want to open up that
[1:50:47] conversation right now. But, I
[1:50:50] do think that you're right,
[1:50:53] this is in line with that law
[1:50:55] that is already in place. I've got Vice Chair Bollinger
[1:51:00] and then Member Lear and then
[1:51:01] Member Kerry.
[1:51:04] Amanda Bollinger: Thank you chair if I may direct a
[1:51:06] question to the maker of the motion, so I'm reading the
[1:51:09] code that says that provide
[1:51:10] additional resources and accommodations to a student
[1:51:12] and then looking at the words, what's the definition of
[1:51:14] meaningful instruction? And
[1:51:16] who determines that?
[1:51:26] Jennie Earl: I mean you'd hope
[1:51:26] the educator right? The idea
[1:51:28] is making this meaningful, we
[1:51:30] can put meaningful instruction
[1:51:31] if you want, I don't know. You
[1:51:35] can take your pick. I guess we
[1:51:36] could just leave it the way it is which means nothing right?
[1:51:39] It just means an
[1:51:40] accommodation. This is suggesting that it should have
[1:51:43] some value to it. If you want
[1:51:45] to use the word value, then we
[1:51:47] can use the word value, I just
[1:51:49] think this is a way of saying
[1:51:50] it's more than just oh you
[1:51:53] don't want to do this, okay,
[1:51:55] well, a time filler. Value to
[1:51:58] the student. So, that's how I define it. I don't know that
[1:52:02] we have to -- I mean I guess
[1:52:03] we could break everything down and define everything. If you
[1:52:06] want to do that then we can
[1:52:07] come up with a definition. I
[1:52:10] feel like that's kind of
[1:52:12] self-evident. But maybe it's
[1:52:15] not.
[1:52:18] Amanda Bollinger: Thank you. I guess the reason
[1:52:19] I'm asking as an educational
[1:52:21] professional to your point we
[1:52:22] I think we already know what's meaningful, and everybody
[1:52:26] that's in education wants to provide meaningful
[1:52:28] opportunities, so by adding
[1:52:30] that, I think that there's
[1:52:31] going to be more questions coming because it's different
[1:52:33] than what's in code. So there's going to be questions
[1:52:36] on what does that specifically
[1:52:37] mean? Or what criteria? Where
[1:52:39] I think in general, educators
[1:52:41] are trying to provide what you would maybe consider like oh I
[1:52:44] think we should all know that
[1:52:45] definition. So I think sometimes when we add an extra
[1:52:49] word to what code is it just creates more confusion. So
[1:52:52] that's why I was asking. That's what I'm saying I don't think it needs to be, I was
[1:52:57] just I don't think it needs to be added because maybe that's
[1:52:59] just how I'm feeling.
[1:53:02] Matt Hymas: Member Lear?
[1:53:06] Carol Lear: I had the same
[1:53:07] question that Member Longacre
[1:53:08] did.
[1:53:09] And I think to her point, this
[1:53:14] isn't just,
[1:53:15] these aren't accommodations to
[1:53:18] a, these are accommodations to
[1:53:21] technology. And I know that
[1:53:25] there have already been LEAs
[1:53:26] who have said
[1:53:28] this is the assignment comment
[1:53:30] you do it or you don't do it.
[1:53:33] So, I don't have a solution.
[1:53:40] If the law says man we're just
[1:53:43] repeating what the law says
[1:53:44] the law says an LEA can decide
[1:53:47] to say
[1:53:50] to parents, and I don't know
[1:53:54] how that would work through
[1:53:55] the right of conscience. And decide which law trumps which
[1:53:58] law. But, I did have the same
[1:54:02] question and concern. And I
[1:54:06] think that the one LEA I'm
[1:54:10] thinking of that I know didn't
[1:54:11] provide the accommodation
[1:54:14] said to the parent, it's not
[1:54:17] doable.
[1:54:19] If my parents ask us to do this it stops our learning
[1:54:22] procedures. Because it's just
[1:54:24] too much overload on a
[1:54:25] teacher. So,
[1:54:30] I just think that we should
[1:54:33] acknowledge that LEAs can work through that hopefully with
[1:54:36] their parents.
[1:54:43] Matt Hymas: So the motion to
[1:54:44] amend is to add after line
[1:54:47] 234, the new language is what
[1:54:53] is it? It would read, sorry. An LEA may provide
[1:54:59] accommodations or supports
[1:55:01] leading to meaningful instructions, including -- so
[1:55:04] the new language is leading to
[1:55:05] meaningful instruction.
[1:55:08] I don't see any additional lights let's go ahead and vote
[1:55:12] on this.
[1:55:15] [Members voting]
[1:56:15] Matt Hymas: Okay that motion
[1:56:16] fails eight, seven in favor,
[1:56:19] those in favor Member Brinton, Member Green, Member Hall,
[1:56:22] Member Davis, Member Kelley,
[1:56:23] Member Earl, and Member Kerry.
[1:56:31] Yeah, I noticed that the
[1:56:34] banner part is gone.
[1:56:44] Okay thank you. We have a
[1:56:48] motion before us
[1:56:51] okay? That reads as follows.
[1:56:54] It said the board approve R
[1:56:55] 277334, classroom technology
[1:56:59] draft two as amended on second
[1:57:02] and final reading, Vice Chair Bollinger,
[1:57:06] Amanda Bollinger: Thank you chair if I may direct a
[1:57:08] question possibly to staff. I
[1:57:11] just want to clarify the lines 94 and 95 that this provides
[1:57:14] an opportunity for LEAs to
[1:57:17] make their own policy comment that they don't necessarily
[1:57:20] have to have everything that's
[1:57:21] written in this, that they can actually have some choice. I know that's that
[1:57:25] Representative Dufay was
[1:57:26] really pushing. And when I
[1:57:29] listened to the committee meeting it was sounding like there was some confusion and
[1:57:31] discussion saying they
[1:57:32] couldn't. I just want to
[1:57:34] clarify that this language and
[1:57:35] this rule does provide LEAs an
[1:57:38] opportunity to create their own policies at the local
[1:57:40] level?
[1:57:45] Matt Hymas:
[1:57:45] The response is yes com is
[1:57:47] that correct? Yep. Member
[1:57:50] Boggess to the motion?
[1:58:35] Let's go ahead and vote.
[1:58:40] [Members voting]
[1:58:52] That passes 14 in favor one abstention coming from Member
[1:58:56] Davis. Back to you Chair Earl.
[1:59:04] Jennie Earl: Thank you. The
[1:59:05] motion before the committee this is related to the high
[1:59:08] school course grading
[1:59:09] requirements. Walton's bill to
[1:59:13] be specific. So the motion is
[1:59:15] the board approved R 277 717
[1:59:18] high school course grading requirements draft one on the
[1:59:21] second and final reading.
[1:59:26] Matt Hymas: Okay the motion
[1:59:27] before the board is that the
[1:59:27] board approve R 277717 high school course grading
[1:59:31] requirements draft one and
[1:59:34] second Member Kelley?
[1:59:43] Joseph Kerry: I have an amendment that I think she has
[1:59:45] ready for me. We'll pull it up
[1:59:47] here.
[1:59:49] Let me just -- I'll make the motion and then I'll speak to
[1:59:56] the motion. But, I moved to
[1:59:59] amend that the board amend
[2:00:01] line 112 to read as follows,
[2:00:04] respectfully listens,
[2:00:05] interacts, and cooperates in classroom activities, and
[2:00:09] amend line 113 to read as
[2:00:11] follows, proactively
[2:00:12] communicates with teacher
[2:00:13] regarding missed classroom time due to parent excused or
[2:00:17] school excused absences.
[2:00:47] Effective communication -- I
[2:00:49] think what Representative
[2:00:51] Wilton's bill is trying to get
[2:00:53] to is to have students
[2:00:59] to have them College ready. I
[2:01:03] think it's much more specific
[2:01:05] than that but I think it's
[2:01:07] much more understandable in
[2:01:09] terms of saying if effective
[2:01:11] communication if a student
[2:01:13] misses class, they are effectively communicating with
[2:01:16] the teacher to get the work that they've missed
[2:01:18] effectively going in and
[2:01:20] making sure that they get the
[2:01:23] work that they missed when
[2:01:25] they were absent. So, I think
[2:01:28] it still captures what
[2:01:30] Representative Wilton was
[2:01:32] going for. But I think it
[2:01:34] quantifies
[2:01:39] measurable very good thank you
[2:01:43] Member Boggess. So yeah.
[2:01:48] Matt Hymas: I've got Member
[2:01:51] Davis?
[2:01:53] Cindy Davis: I was going to
[2:01:54] divide the question because I
[2:01:56] wanted to keep 112. Are you
[2:01:59] saying to strike 112? You're keeping the language in the
[2:02:04] words in 112?
[2:02:09] Joseph Kerry:
[2:02:09] 112 would read cooperates in
[2:02:11] classroom activities.
[2:02:14] Matt Hymas: So you're looking
[2:02:17] to strike class participation and personal engagement and
[2:02:20] replace it with -- respectfully listens,
[2:02:23] interacts and cooperates in
[2:02:24] classroom activities?
[2:02:27] Member Davis?
[2:02:40] Member Green? Go ahead.
[2:02:46] Emily Green:
[2:02:46] This is probably to the maker
[2:02:48] of the motion. Can you help me
[2:02:50] to understand what that looks
[2:02:52] like as far as is it a point
[2:02:55] system? Is it -- are you
[2:02:57] reviewing 30 students every
[2:03:00] classroom. How is that
[2:03:03] recorded or judged?
[2:03:07] Also, within obviously
[2:03:10] respectfully listening I think
[2:03:12] is a big thing. And that
[2:03:15] should be happening. I'm not
[2:03:16] sure how much it happens. I've
[2:03:19] seen situations where you know
[2:03:21] you're a little disheartened
[2:03:22] because there are hooligans. So I like the whole
[2:03:27] respectfully listens thing.
[2:03:29] The interacts, cooperates in
[2:03:31] classroom activities, I'm just wondering what does that
[2:03:34] actually look like? How does
[2:03:35] this manifest?
[2:03:38] Matt Hymas: Do you want to
[2:03:40] respond Member Kelley? Go
[2:03:41] ahead.
[2:03:44] Joseph Kerry: Yeah, and this is why, I'm gonna
[2:03:49] make sure the credit Member
[2:03:50] Boggess for this language. I
[2:03:53] got this from a rubric that
[2:03:54] she helped to develop. And,
[2:04:02] Cole Kelley: I don't want to micromanage how teachers
[2:04:05] implement this in their
[2:04:06] classroom. So, whether that's
[2:04:08] happening on a day to day
[2:04:09] basis if the teacher is saying
[2:04:11] daily I'm giving you a score,
[2:04:14] but, as a teacher, this is something that I can measure.
[2:04:19] So, if I lecture for 15
[2:04:21] minutes and I'm in front of
[2:04:22] the students, and a student
[2:04:24] has her head down on the desk or students on their phone and
[2:04:28] I know there's no cell phone
[2:04:29] policy. If they're not respectfully listening during that time
[2:04:35] period, it's easy for me to say you didn't respectfully
[2:04:38] listen, therefore, you didn't
[2:04:40] earn these points today. And again I don't want to
[2:04:44] micromanage how a teacher is
[2:04:46] going to implement that, but
[2:04:48] this language in my opinion
[2:04:49] just makes it measurable. So
[2:04:52] that I can quantify that you
[2:04:56] have met this requirement.
[2:05:05] Matt Hymas:
[2:05:05] Member Boggess?
[2:05:08] Emily Green: Thanks. If I
[2:05:10] could just add on to Member, I think that everything, I
[2:05:14] really don't like this bill. I
[2:05:15] didn't like this rule, I think it's a social credit score
[2:05:18] that is disguised as a
[2:05:20] citizenship grade. I think it sends us in a really bad
[2:05:23] direction in education and in
[2:05:24] society as a whole. But, if we
[2:05:26] are going to have one then we need to have a clear rubric
[2:05:29] that is communicated to
[2:05:30] students and parents, that tells them what they need to
[2:05:34] do or engage in to earn a
[2:05:36] score in this area. And, it
[2:05:39] was probably 2013? I worked
[2:05:44] for a school district that implemented social credit
[2:05:46] scores. And I was very adamant
[2:05:50] at that time, and we developed
[2:05:51] a ten point rubric that
[2:05:54] included things like following
[2:05:55] instructions, contributing
[2:05:58] ideas and information, contributing materials,
[2:06:00] sharing responsibilities, explaining things to others,
[2:06:03] asking meaningful questions,
[2:06:04] helping the group stay on
[2:06:05] task. Asking for help when needed, and then each one of
[2:06:09] those it goes on there's like
[2:06:10] six more. But in each one of
[2:06:12] those quartile categories, we
[2:06:14] had very specific actions that
[2:06:16] you could observe of a
[2:06:17] student. And the highest one
[2:06:20] is obviously the respectfully listens interacts and
[2:06:24] cooperates in classroom
[2:06:25] activities. And then, it goes
[2:06:28] on in there that their inquiry
[2:06:29] is focused and their a great
[2:06:34] addition to the classroom initiative because the focus
[2:06:36] of the day come they're not constantly distracting from
[2:06:39] the lesson itself. So they are
[2:06:40] measurable things. And if
[2:06:43] schools implement this, they absolutely should have a
[2:06:45] rubric in my opinion. I don't
[2:06:48] think it should be something that's Willy nilly. Like one
[2:06:51] through four come you seem to
[2:06:52] do great today you should get a four. I think they should
[2:06:55] actually have to meet the actionable criteria listed in
[2:06:58] a rubric in order to earn that
[2:07:00] score. So they know what they
[2:07:01] need to do differently the
[2:07:02] next time. If that makes
[2:07:04] sense. And without a rubric, then it becomes subjective day
[2:07:09] to day. So I think this is a
[2:07:11] scary place to put our
[2:07:12] schools, I'm not a fan of it.
[2:07:14] But I do like this language much better than the language
[2:07:17] that is presently in the
[2:07:25] rule.
Matt
[2:07:25] Hymas: Member Davis?
[2:07:25] Cindy Davis: I like the ending
[2:07:27] part of this motion, because they give some responsibility
[2:07:30] to the student. Even if they
[2:07:33] want to choose to participate in a lot of school activities
[2:07:36] and miss school, they should
[2:07:38] be communicating with the teacher. They should be
[2:07:40] seeking how to make up that
[2:07:43] work. It does teach that responsibility peer can I do
[2:07:45] think this is more observable
[2:07:46] than the other one. Just
[2:07:50] speaking very briefly, I just
[2:07:53] think citizenship grades have been helpful in the past, and
[2:07:58] I'm just going to quickly say
[2:07:59] when I was in the eighth grade, my history teacher gave
[2:08:02] me a U in citizenship. And I
[2:08:06] was so mad. I was so mad, I
[2:08:10] was so angry. I went and
[2:08:13] talked to him. And I said I'm on time every day. I never
[2:08:17] miss class. I never talk when you're talking. I never break
[2:08:21] the rules. I am a good kid.
[2:08:23] And he said you have so much
[2:08:27] to give, you have so many
[2:08:29] thoughts and ideas. And you
[2:08:32] never speak your mind. And it
[2:08:34] changed my life. And he said
[2:08:37] if you start contributing in
[2:08:38] this class, all of the amazing things that you have in your
[2:08:41] brain, I'm sure they weren't
[2:08:43] amazing as a 14 year old. But he made me think that they
[2:08:46] were a. And he made me think that I had something to give.
[2:08:49] I think it changed the
[2:08:50] trajectory of my life. And the way that I continued through
[2:08:54] school, the way I behaved, the
[2:08:56] way I continued on throughout my professional career, and
[2:08:59] maybe even sitting here today.
[2:09:00] I hate to put that much into one citizenship grade but I
[2:09:03] was that fired up after
[2:09:04] getting that to you. And it helped me see that there is
[2:09:08] more to learning and being a student than just turning all
[2:09:12] of the assignments in and
[2:09:14] keeping the rules.
[2:09:18] Matt Hymas:
[2:09:18] Thank you. Next we're going to go to Member Kerry but we're
[2:09:23] going to pass on him due to
[2:09:24] the good luck comment he made
[2:09:26] earlier.
[2:09:29] I'm just going to speak before
[2:09:32] Member Green if that's okay. I
[2:09:35] understand what we're trying to do here. Some of the
[2:09:37] concern that I've had, I'm speaking against this motion.
[2:09:42] And the reason is some of the
[2:09:43] concern that I've had over the
[2:09:45] past few months is that we
[2:09:48] have more and more
[2:09:51] put our hands in places where
[2:09:54] they probably don't belong. And more and more we have told
[2:09:59] the LEAs what you are going to
[2:10:01] do and this is how you're
[2:10:02] going to do it. And I remember
[2:10:05] running on a local control
[2:10:06] platform which would look
[2:10:09] completely different now than
[2:10:11] it did two years ago when I
[2:10:14] ran. But, but regardless of
[2:10:18] that, my concern here we have
[2:10:20] the authority to change this,
[2:10:22] you're absolutely within law.
[2:10:24] My concern here is that with
[2:10:26] your changes,
[2:10:29] 112 which says class participation and engagement
[2:10:32] is now tied to classroom
[2:10:34] activities. You've tied it to
[2:10:37] classroom activities. And then in 113, where it says
[2:10:42] effective communication, you
[2:10:44] have tied that to missed
[2:10:46] classroom time. So if we even
[2:10:49] use Cindy's experience of her
[2:10:52] teacher was trying to get her
[2:10:53] to speak up about what was in her mind, whether that was
[2:10:58] effective communication, that was what ten years ago when
[2:11:01] you were in eighth grade Cindy right? I don't know. Things
[2:11:04] have changed come I get that.
[2:11:06] But now we're saying with this
[2:11:07] motion, we are saying it's not
[2:11:10] before us anymore but we're
[2:11:11] saying that 113 is tied to missed classroom time, that's
[2:11:15] what you're talking about when you say effective
[2:11:16] communication. And then for
[2:11:19] class participation and
[2:11:20] personal engagement, you
[2:11:23] suggestion is that it is tied
[2:11:25] to class activities. So I do
[2:11:28] struggle with those. And with
[2:11:31] that I would speak against it.
[2:11:33] Some Member Green if you are
[2:11:35] ready.
[2:11:42] Emily Green: It's more of a
[2:11:43] question. I'm going to the
[2:11:44] past again. Humor me. Seems like when I was in middle
[2:11:46] school and high school, we had the whole citizenship grade,
[2:11:49] it was an n, a u,
[2:11:53] H, s. Yeah. Those ones. Why
[2:11:57] did we get rid of that? Does
[2:12:01] anybody remember this comic I don't know if it's like we got
[2:12:05] rid of it and now we're trying
[2:12:06] to bring it back? And I don't
[2:12:08] know what --
[2:12:14] Matt Hymas: This is a great
[2:12:15] question but is it relevant to this here? I just want to stay
[2:12:17] on track.
[2:12:20] Emily Green: I guess for me I guess I could take this offline here the reason I ask
[2:12:23] is we're kind of in a side
[2:12:24] conversation here and I kind
[2:12:25] of feel the same way. We see
[2:12:28] the attendance issues, so we
[2:12:30] want something that can help track the attendance. This
[2:12:33] builds in the amendment right
[2:12:35] now is trying to build in the
[2:12:36] accountability for attendance. And then you've got kids who
[2:12:40] just kind of seem to be a little bit rogue these days
[2:12:42] for whatever reasons, so we're
[2:12:44] trying to build that in to get
[2:12:46] them the character. For that
[2:12:47] kind of falls underneath. Like
[2:12:50] in other areas. Were always
[2:12:51] very well intentioned with
[2:12:54] this citizenship grading
[2:12:56] thing. But, I like the
[2:13:01] clarity. But, I also fear that
[2:13:04] we are going to be building in
[2:13:06] all of these things, and then they'll still be a sense of
[2:13:10] fragmentation that will exist.
[2:13:12] So, I don't know. I guess I'm
[2:13:14] just -- I know trend cycle, and I think the citizenship
[2:13:18] and attendance and all of that
[2:13:20] is also cycling through again,
[2:13:22] so we're back to trying to fix
[2:13:24] it. But -- I don't know. Sorry. That's all I have to
[2:13:27] say.
[2:13:32] Matt Hymas: I've got Member
[2:13:33] Kelley, let me clarify are you
[2:13:36] gonna amend the amendment? Back to you Member Kelley and then I've got Vice Chair
[2:13:40] Bollinger.
[2:13:41] Cole Kelley: Yeah I just wanted to reply to your
[2:13:44] comment Chair Hymas, I've
[2:13:46] heard a lot of the same
[2:13:47] criticisms as board member Boggess that you know and what
[2:13:51] I'm hoping to do is make sure
[2:13:53] that this is not a social
[2:13:55] credit score. I don't want to
[2:13:58] leave it so ambiguous that
[2:14:01] they teacher can come along
[2:14:03] and say effective
[2:14:03] communication means that
[2:14:08] you're expressing an opinion in a way that I want you to
[2:14:13] express that opinion. And
[2:14:15] therefore, I'm giving you a
[2:14:17] poor grade because I don't
[2:14:18] agree with how you
[2:14:20] communicated that idea.
[2:14:23] And I worked with
[2:14:26] Representative Wilson or
[2:14:28] sorry, Wilson a little bit on
[2:14:30] this bill, and I know that his
[2:14:32] intent was with effective
[2:14:34] communication, if a student
[2:14:37] misses class, then they need to proactively go talk to that
[2:14:39] teacher, they need to get the
[2:14:41] work that they've missed,
[2:14:44] so, I think that's why we're
[2:14:47] within our rule authority to
[2:14:49] be more specific with the
[2:14:50] rule, and so, that's why I
[2:14:54] chose to make this amendment
[2:14:56] as I did. Because it's much
[2:14:58] more measurable. And it's not an opinion of how I think that
[2:15:03] you're communicating.
[2:15:08] Matt Hymas:
[2:15:08] Vice Chair Bollinger.
[2:15:11] Amanda Bollinger: Thank you
[2:15:14] chair and I do agree that sometimes it's nice to have
[2:15:16] those rubrics come I totally agree with you. I also agree
[2:15:18] with Chair Hymas, that this is
[2:15:20] an optional policy that
[2:15:22] districts may or may not do,
[2:15:24] so every district doesn't have to have citizenship. So I tend
[2:15:28] to agree that at a local level
[2:15:29] they can set that more
[2:15:30] specific criteria, because then they can create their own
[2:15:33] policy they just have to address those. But come with
[2:15:36] that, just a question. Maybe
[2:15:38] to the drafters of our current
[2:15:41] rule. I'm curious to know when
[2:15:45] we use effective communication why that wording effective
[2:15:49] communication was used when it looks like the rest of the
[2:15:52] wording comes from HB 502 from
[2:15:54] codes, I'm looking at line 48
[2:15:56] on code where it says teacher Communication. So I'm curious
[2:16:00] to know what the change was,
[2:16:02] and maybe that came from the
[2:16:03] committee. If the change was
[2:16:04] from teacher communication to effective communication. Anybody that can help me to
[2:16:08] understand that?
[2:16:14] At least you've got a response?
[2:16:19] >> I will momentarily. Thank
[2:16:20] you Chair.
[2:16:41] >> Just to clarify effective communication as it stands in
[2:16:41] the proposed rule? Or in the
[2:16:43] proposed amendment?
 >> In the proposed rule.
[2:16:47] >> In which line was that
[2:16:52] one?
>>
[2:16:52] In rule it was on line 113.
 >> Okay and I just realized I
[2:16:53] left my computer. Oh it doesn't need to be here. Thank
[2:16:56] you. Okay. So, what we were
[2:16:58] trying to do here in committee was to follow the code as it
[2:17:00] was written, but create it so
[2:17:02] that it was more applicable to
[2:17:04] the LEAs as they put them into practice. So com if we need to
[2:17:07] amend that, we definitely can.
[2:17:18] Matt Hymas:
[2:17:20] Okay. I don't have any
[2:17:22] additional lights here. The
[2:17:25] motion before us, let's bring
[2:17:27] the motion back. Back before
[2:17:30] us here. Because, regardless of if it's effective
[2:17:33] communication or teacher
[2:17:34] communication, the amendment
[2:17:36] would eliminate that either
[2:17:39] way. Right? So, let's get
[2:17:43] who's driving this? This pony?
[2:17:45] Is it on the amendment? Okay.
[2:17:49] Go ahead.
[2:17:52] Okay there is a motion to
[2:17:55] divide, is there a second?
[2:17:58] There is a second. Is there
[2:18:01] objection to dividing? I'm not
[2:18:04] hearing any, let's divide them. Let's get those motions
[2:18:07] before us. And let's put the
[2:18:09] first half on the table here.
[2:18:25] Right the motion before us is
[2:18:27] that the board amend line 112
[2:18:28] to strike class participation
[2:18:32] and personal engagement and
[2:18:35] replace it with respectfully
[2:18:36] listens hum interacts, and
[2:18:39] cooperates in classroom
[2:18:41] activities. Seeing no lights
[2:18:44] on this amendment, let's go
[2:18:46] ahead and put it to a vote.
[2:18:52] [Members voting]
[2:19:09] Matt Hymas: Voting is open.
[2:19:17] Motion passes ten in favor, five opposed, those opposed
[2:19:22] remember Boothe Member Reale,
[2:19:23] Member Bollinger, Member Wood,
[2:19:26] Member Hymas. Now, let's look
[2:19:28] at the second motion that came
[2:19:32] out of the divide.
[2:19:35] And that is that the board
[2:19:38] amend line 113. To strike
[2:19:40] effective communication and replace it with proactively
[2:19:44] communicates with the teacher
[2:19:45] regarding missed classroom
[2:19:47] time due to parent excused or
[2:19:49] school excused absences. Yes.
[2:19:54] Vice Chair Wood, an amendment
[2:19:56] to the amendment is in order.
[2:20:08] I'd like to move instead of striking that we move
[2:20:11] including so that the board
[2:20:13] amend 113 would read effective
[2:20:16] communication including proactively communicating with
[2:20:19] the teacher regarding missed
[2:20:20] classroom time. Because I think effective communication
[2:20:23] is so much more than just
[2:20:26] getting the assignment when you've missed a class. There's
[2:20:28] more to it on that.
[2:20:31] Matt Hymas: Okay so the motion
[2:20:34] is to not strike effective
[2:20:35] communication, but to keep effective communication and
[2:20:38] add the word including so that
[2:20:41] it would read effective
[2:20:42] communication including proactively communicates with
[2:20:45] the teacher regarding missed
[2:20:49] -- proactively communicating with the teacher regarding
[2:20:51] missed classroom time due to parent excused or school
[2:20:54] excused absences. Sounds like
[2:20:57] we have a second? Okay. Back
[2:21:00] to you Vice Chair Wood.
[2:21:09] >> I spoke to it I apologize
[2:21:09] but I do think that effective
[2:21:09] communication is more than
[2:21:11] just discussing missed
[2:21:14] classroom time. Or homework or
[2:21:19] whatever.
[2:21:21] Matt Hymas: Member Kelley to
[2:21:24] the motion.
[2:21:25] Cole Kelley: This is not my
[2:21:27] motion but I wonder if Member would be open to encode, its
[2:21:30] teacher communication. Not
[2:21:32] effective communication. Would you be open to changing
[2:21:37] effective communication to
[2:21:38] teacher communication? As it
[2:21:40] is in code?
[2:21:44] Matt Hymas: I think what we
[2:21:46] need to do because this is a motion that has been placed
[2:21:48] and seconded, let's take care
[2:21:50] of this amendment to the amendment, and then we can
[2:21:52] readdress it if need be.
[2:21:55] Your question is to this
[2:21:58] amendment? Okay. Go ahead
[2:21:59] Member Green.
[2:22:09] Emily Green: I'm just wondering does this imply that
[2:22:10] the student should have communicated with the teacher
[2:22:12] before or after an absence?
[2:22:16] And does that --
[2:22:20] Matt Hymas: I believe that would be not to this motion
[2:22:23] but the one if this passes or
[2:22:25] fails it would be proactively communicates would be there I
[2:22:28] think your question is not necessarily to this amendment because we are saying
[2:22:32] effective communication maybe
[2:22:34] it is. I don't know. Do we
[2:22:36] have a --
[2:22:44] Emily Green: Well because if
[2:22:44] we don't retain effective communication, then we're just
[2:22:47] -- that adds a nuance to it. I
[2:22:50] just need to know if a student that may or may not have
[2:22:53] control over a parent excused
[2:22:55] absence will be, you know. In
[2:22:59] trouble or whatever, you want to lower citizenship grade
[2:23:02] because they communicated
[2:23:04] afterwards. Do they need to know that that absence is
[2:23:07] taking place? At what point? I
[2:23:09] don't know. It's getting a
[2:23:10] little sticky for me.
[2:23:17] Matt Hymas: Okay. I don't know
[2:23:20] if we have a response to
[2:23:22] Member Green you've got a
[2:23:25] response? I've got Member
[2:23:27] Kerry in the queue, is your
[2:23:30] response written here? Here's the issue guys. We're going to
[2:23:33] sit here we're going to say
[2:23:34] well I think it means this right? Here's my intent behind
[2:23:36] it, we do this with our lawmakers, what's their
[2:23:39] intent, well, who cares here's our intent with their intent.
[2:23:43] Right? So I don't want to go
[2:23:45] down this rabbit hole of here's what I think it means
[2:23:47] well, the LEAs, they don't
[2:23:50] care right? I'm not trying to be rude, but it's like no, I'm
[2:23:53] gonna read this, and then I'm
[2:23:55] going to take what I believe
[2:23:56] this says, and I'm going to go
[2:23:58] with it. So, I don't know, to
[2:24:01] answer your question, I don't know if there is an answer to
[2:24:04] your question. Member Green. There's nothing written down
[2:24:08] that says you have to come see
[2:24:10] me before you leave, or come
[2:24:12] see me ten days prior to or when you get back right?
[2:24:17] Within ten days. So I don't
[2:24:20] know. Unless the LEA has put
[2:24:24] something in their.
[2:24:31] >> That's why we said effective communication
[2:24:31] because effective can be implied if they did not know
[2:24:33] that they were going to be absent come parent excuses
[2:24:35] them, they leave class, and
[2:24:37] then they come back and say
[2:24:39] hey, I had this, what did I
[2:24:41] miss? That would be effective
[2:24:44] communication. You know? But I
[2:24:46] also feel like we're getting
[2:24:47] maybe a little confused if it needs to be the teacher communication not effective
[2:24:51] communication. So effective in essence, before or after if
[2:24:56] you have communicated, then
[2:24:58] you have been effective.
 >> I'm going to go in order of
[2:25:03] the lights here I've got
[2:25:03] Member Kerry, Member Boggess.
[2:25:05] And staff three.
[2:25:16] >> Chair I don't have anything
[2:25:16] to add after that discussion
[2:25:16] you just had on record. Thank you.
[2:25:18] Matt Hymas: Member Boggess?
[2:25:22] Amanda Bollinger: I see Member
[2:25:25] Green point com if someone wants to be abusive and teachers have been abusive
[2:25:27] which is why parents oppose
[2:25:28] these things. So, they could do exactly as Member Green
[2:25:31] said and make it into a you didn't talk to me before you
[2:25:34] left, so therefore you get a
[2:25:36] zero, that has happened, it
[2:25:38] continues to happen, but the
[2:25:39] reality is, I think, the
[2:25:44] effect of this is you can't
[2:25:46] wait until after grades are posted to have the
[2:25:49] conversation. And nothing is more irritating to a teacher
[2:25:54] than when a student just doesn't engage all semester long and then they want their
[2:25:57] grade changed in June after
[2:25:59] the report card comes out. And I think that's the intent. But
[2:26:03] nothing in this language
[2:26:05] prevents Member Green Jones
[2:26:07] concerns from happening. And
[2:26:10] do I still like this language better than what's proposed
[2:26:12] initially? Yes. I do. I would
[2:26:15] speak in favor of passing Member Kelly's motion. Do I
[2:26:20] still have concerns?
[2:26:21] Absolutely. Because it's not written in a way that it
[2:26:24] cannot be abused and I know we like to protect teachers. I
[2:26:29] get it. I like to think that
[2:26:30] I'm not one that abuses kids.
[2:26:35] But there are teachers that do. We see them in Upac every
[2:26:38] month and there are teachers
[2:26:40] that do and never make it to Upac. And they abuse them
[2:26:43] through policies like this
[2:26:43] that allow them to do that. So we do need to be careful with
[2:26:47] our words I think, and be very cautious when we put them
[2:26:51] forward. But those are just my
[2:26:53] thoughts. I still think that this is better language than
[2:26:56] the language initially
[2:26:57] proposed. Thank you.
[2:27:02] Matt Hymas: Okay. LEAs, are we
[2:27:04] good? Go ahead.
[2:27:12] >> One note for you all as
[2:27:12] you're having this important conversation part of HB 502
[2:27:12] that these changes came from
[2:27:14] direct the board to create
[2:27:17] guidance on the
[2:27:20] policies for grading in this
[2:27:23] way. So for the citizenship
[2:27:25] grading. So this rule is just a teeny tiny piece. And then
[2:27:29] in the future in the next year
[2:27:30] we're going to be working on that in committee to really
[2:27:34] think through all of these
[2:27:35] details that you're working on right now. So that will be
[2:27:38] coming to a committee in the
[2:27:40] next couple of months. Schools
[2:27:42] do not have to put this into
[2:27:43] effect until next school year, so a year from now. So, we do
[2:27:47] have some time to do that if
[2:27:49] you would like to pause this conversation and bring that to
[2:27:52] a committee the staff is ready
[2:27:53] to help you there.
[2:28:01] Matt Hymas: Thank you. Member
[2:28:01] Green?
[2:28:02] Emily Green: This might be a
[2:28:05] technical add if we are from
[2:28:06] Member Kelly's motion do we need to add the word including
[2:28:10] into that?
[2:28:12] Matt Hymas: Yes so it would be
[2:28:15] effective communication, it's part of it it just
[2:28:19] hasn't been put on the screen. So the motion before us is
[2:28:22] that we add or that the board retain effective communication
[2:28:29] and add including. To Member
[2:28:33] Kelly's motion. So, let's vote
[2:28:36] on the amendment to amend.
[2:28:39] Seeing no lights let's go ahead and put that on the
[2:28:43] screen and open it up.
[2:28:55] That passes unanimously with
[2:28:59] one absent, which brings us to
[2:29:02] the amended
[2:29:05] amendment that is before us.
[2:29:09] Which is now a combination of
[2:29:11] Member Kelley and Vice Chair
[2:29:14] Wood s. But, it states that
[2:29:17] the board amend line 113 to
[2:29:21] add including proactively
[2:29:23] communicates with the teacher regarding missed classroom
[2:29:25] time due to parent excused or
[2:29:28] school excused absences. Let's
[2:29:30] go ahead and vote on this.
[2:30:01] [Members voting]
[2:30:01] Matt Hymas: The motion passes
[2:30:01] five in favor and nine opposed
[2:30:08] -- (Indiscernible)
[2:30:08] this brings us to the underlying motion. Let me
[2:30:12] restate it. I know we do have an amendment coming but let me
[2:30:15] restate it so that we are all
[2:30:16] on the same page here. We are
[2:30:18] on again, R2 77717. The motion
[2:30:24] is that the board approve R2 77717 high school course
[2:30:28] grading requirements draft one as amended on the second and
[2:30:31] final reading, over to you
[2:30:33] Member Kerry.
[2:30:52] Joseph Kerry: Thank you. I had a motion that it would be a
[2:30:56] violation of a religious
[2:30:57] belief or conscious assertion
[2:30:58] made to 53 G ten 205,
[2:31:02] basically that if a student or
[2:31:04] parent is making an assertion that this policy violates
[2:31:07] their religious belief or
[2:31:08] right of conscience, that that law would apply. That's the
[2:31:12] motion. With a second I would
[2:31:13] speak to it.
[2:31:16] Matt Hymas: Okay the motion
[2:31:19] has been stated and seconded
[2:31:20] go ahead Member Kerry.
[2:31:25] Joseph Kerry: Thank you chair staff could call up line 114
[2:31:28] basically they're saying a teacher may not assign or
[2:31:30] reduce the citizenship grade
[2:31:31] based on, and it lists two
[2:31:34] items, says well disability,
[2:31:36] okay, that makes sense. Valid
[2:31:38] excused absence. But, I would
[2:31:41] also like to include in that
[2:31:43] list that a teacher may not
[2:31:47] assign or reduce a citizenship
[2:31:50] grade based on a violation of a religious belief or right of
[2:31:53] conscience assertion made
[2:31:55] pursuant to 53 G dash ten dash
[2:31:58] 205. And I think that's
[2:32:01] important, because, a valid
[2:32:05] excused absence as defined in
[2:32:07] 53 G 620 1st May not include
[2:32:11] an absence that a parent takes based on their religious
[2:32:16] belief or right of conscience.
[2:32:18] So, not duplicative we need
[2:32:22] that explanation for students when exercising their First
[2:32:26] Amendment right religious belief and right of conscience
[2:32:30] and that's why I feel like the motion is appropriate. Thank
[2:32:32] you Chair.
[2:32:34] Matt Hymas: Thank you. Let me
[2:32:36] restate the motion. Because I
[2:32:39] don't see any lights. So let
[2:32:42] me restate the motion then.
[2:32:43] The motion is that the board
[2:32:46] add a line to R2
[2:32:47] 77717-43 that reads a violation of a religious
[2:32:55] belief or right of conscience
[2:32:56] assertion
[2:32:58] made pursuant to 53 G dash ten
[2:33:02] dash five Member Boggess?
[2:33:05] Christina Boggess: I just read
[2:33:07] that. Do we need, maybe it's
[2:33:08] to the maker of the motion. Do we need the violation of
[2:33:11] religious belief? Or can we
[2:33:14] just say it cannot be reduced based upon a right of
[2:33:16] conscience assertion made
[2:33:18] pursuant to -- because, the two are different in my
[2:33:22] opinion. A teacher violating a student's religious belief is
[2:33:27] very different than a right of
[2:33:28] conscience assertion.
[2:33:33] Unless I'm misunderstanding
[2:33:35] you. I think they are two
[2:33:36] different things.
[2:33:40] Matt Hymas: Okay picture
[2:33:42] that's to the maker of the
[2:33:42] motion do you want to respond.
[2:33:44] Do you have a response? Member Kerry go ahead.
[2:33:53] Joseph Kerry: Thank you. I'm not sure I understand what's
[2:33:56] being proposed or what's being said so if there's some
[2:33:57] clarification?
[2:34:00] Amanda Bollinger: So either it's duplicative or there are
[2:34:03] two different things, so I'm wondering if we need the first
[2:34:04] part. The violation of a
[2:34:08] religious belief or right of
[2:34:09] conscience. To me there either one and the same or they're
[2:34:12] two different things. And a teacher violating a student's
[2:34:16] religious belief
[2:34:19] is not --
[2:34:23] Matt Hymas: Can I just point out Vice Chair Bollinger just
[2:34:26] pulled up the code it does say
[2:34:28] this is 53 G ten, 205 section
[2:34:31] four. Students parent may waive the student's
[2:34:34] participation in any aspect of
[2:34:37] school that violates the
[2:34:38] student's or the student's
[2:34:40] parents religious belief or
[2:34:43] right of conscience. So both
[2:34:46] are in code.
[2:34:47] Amanda Bollinger: So then should we remove the violation
[2:34:51] of? I'm wondering what --
[2:34:58] a religious belief or right of
[2:35:00] conscience assertion.
[2:35:03] And I would make that amendment, that we remove a
[2:35:07] violation of a.
[2:35:12] I think that would read better
[2:35:14] and it would be more clear in
[2:35:16] practice. Or double Dutch
[2:35:19] maybe just a violation of. Because the noun marker would
[2:35:24] be essential.
[2:35:29] Matt Hymas: So you want to amend the amendment by removing the violation of. Is
[2:35:33] that correct? There's a
[2:35:34] second. It's been spoken to
[2:35:38] ishe. Okay.
[2:35:42] Is there opposition to this
[2:35:44] amendment? I'm not seeing any.
[2:35:48] So, let's relook at this then
[2:35:51] and it would read a religious
[2:35:53] belief, so in context it would read in three, teacher may not
[2:35:57] assign or reduce the
[2:35:58] citizenship grade based on a religious belief or right of
[2:36:02] conscience assertion made
[2:36:05] pursuant to 53 G ten dash ten
[2:36:09] dash 205. That's the motion
[2:36:13] before us. Let's go ahead and
[2:36:14] vote.
[2:36:22] [Members voting]
[2:37:01] Matt Hymas: (laughs)
[2:37:03] that motion passes 14 in favor one abstention coming from
[2:37:06] Member Reale. We are back to
[2:37:10] the underlying motion, and
[2:37:12] that is that the board approve
[2:37:13] R 277717, high school course
[2:37:17] grading requirements draft one
[2:37:18] as amended on second and final reading. Seeing no lights
[2:37:22] let's vote.
[2:37:29] [Members voting]
[2:37:46] Matt Hymas: Okay that passes 12 in favor three opposed
[2:37:48] those coming from Member Boggess, Member Green, Member
[2:37:51] Earl. Chair Earl? Board members, do we need a break
[2:37:57] for a few minutes? Or are we
[2:37:58] good to keep going? Do you
[2:38:02] want to keep going? Okay.
[2:38:06] If I got one person saying I need a break I'm taking. I've
[2:38:09] got two? Three? So we got
[2:38:11] three breaks. Let's just pause right here. We're on agenda
[2:38:14] item 4.5, can we put seven
[2:38:16] minutes on the timer? Thank
[2:38:17] you.
[2:38:28] [Board is in Recess]
[2:46:06] Matt Hymas: Board members if
[2:46:08] we can gather back to our
[2:46:09] seats.
[2:46:13] Kelsey is going to pass out
[2:46:16] some cookies maybe can I get some Purple star cookies
[2:46:19] going.
[2:46:36] Okay. So come if you recall we
[2:46:40] are on agenda item 4.5. This
[2:46:45] is the child sexual abuse and
[2:46:47] human trafficking
[2:46:48] instructional materials and
[2:46:51] approval.
[2:46:55] So we're going to go back to Chair Earl whenever you're
[2:46:58] ready.
[2:47:00] Jennie Earl: I'm ready. We have three motions coming out
[2:47:04] of this section coming at the
[2:47:05] start I just want to say thank you to staff over the years
[2:47:09] and board members
[2:47:21] Weeding out the ones that don't meet you Taco and the people who are putting them forward or making sure they
[2:47:27] align with law. So it's just nice the amount of time that
[2:47:29] we are spending is in
[2:47:30] reviewing them, not in saying,
[2:47:34] you know this piece doesn't align with law and that type
[2:47:36] of thing. So there's enough to maybe get a few more people
[2:47:39] back in here maybe not.
[2:47:44] First motion come I'm going to
[2:47:45] make them separately here is
[2:47:46] that -- is that the way you'd
[2:47:48] like me to do that?
[2:47:53] We can do all three if so let
[2:47:56] me just speak to number three. At that at the end of that if you see it says if changes are made to the curriculum
[2:48:00] discussed in committee. Let me tell you what the two changes
[2:48:03] were and they did make these.
[2:48:20] Matt Hymas: Let me just make
[2:48:21] sure we're all clear. Because
[2:48:22] there's three different -- what are these called
[2:48:26] programs? That are up for
[2:48:28] approval. We are putting them in one motion but Chair Earl
[2:48:32] is going to speak to --
[2:48:38] Jennie Earl: I'm going to speak to the third item because we asked for two things I'm going to tell you
[2:48:41] what they are and tell you what they did. The first thing
[2:48:44] is we changed revenge porn to
[2:48:46] sextortion because that's what we use in our law we don't use
[2:48:49] revenge porn anywhere. So we asked it to align with the
[2:48:52] provisions of our code. The second one was we had
[2:48:54] resources from Ohio. We said well that's great but we
[2:48:58] actually have kids in Utah. So
[2:49:01] they aligned those resources
[2:49:02] with Utah's resources. Those two things were completed and
[2:49:07] so just letting you know when
[2:49:08] you see here that they've updated their resources to
[2:49:12] reflect those accurately. Okay? I will make the motion
[2:49:15] now. Okay the motion is that the board approved the
[2:49:18] following.
[2:49:21] Matt Hymas: The motion hasn't
[2:49:24] come out yet. You're going to make the motion, there's a
[2:49:27] point of correction you're asking if yes come the motion
[2:49:29] hasn't been set before the board Chair Earl is doing it right now.
[2:49:35] Jennie Earl:
[2:49:35] Okay. So number one is 24852
[2:49:38] education to protect El six
[2:49:42] abuse prevention. Elementary
[2:49:44] students come a child sexual
[2:49:46] abuse. Number two, is 24846 on watch combating trafficking
[2:49:54] through education, adults
[2:49:55] serving youth, and number three is 24850 venture safe
[2:49:59] schools, human trafficking awareness grade six.
[2:50:05] Matt Hymas: Thank you Chair
[2:50:07] Earl the motion has been stated it's been clarified
[2:50:09] comments on the screen, it is now open for any questions. If
[2:50:13] there are questions just
[2:50:14] remember that the motion is to
[2:50:16] approve these three programs.
[2:50:22] Member Kerry?
[2:50:33] Joseph Kerry: Thank you chair
[2:50:35] and maybe this is my understanding but I thought
[2:50:38] that revenge porn was separate from sextortion because you
[2:50:42] can post for revenge and not necessarily seek to extort
[2:50:45] anything from another party. So are we losing that
[2:50:48] distinction? In this change?
[2:50:54] Matt Hymas: And this is
[2:50:55] regarding 24850 the third one
[2:50:57] is that right?
[2:51:00] Jennie Earl: Yeah can we ask that sextortion be put in
[2:51:04] there that was not in there at all and that is in the code.
[2:51:07] So we asked them to change that out. If we wanted to have
[2:51:10] them put that in with
[2:51:11] sextortion we could do that.
[2:51:15] Matt Hymas: I think that's the question, is there a
[2:51:18] difference? Is revenge porn
[2:51:20] captured in sextortion?
[2:51:22] Jennie Earl: Do we have a place for definitions? I don't
[2:51:26] know. I wouldn't be able to answer that question.
[2:51:29] Matt Hymas: I think Member
[2:51:31] Kerry is point is you're not posting some you're just
[2:51:34] posting something there's no
[2:51:36] extortion taking place.
[2:51:42] Joseph Kerry: Right there's still harm and still damage
[2:51:45] but you're not gaining anything.
[2:51:49] Matt Hymas: Let me ask you Chair Earl come you spoke to the third one regarding these
[2:51:53] topics, I don't know why I shouldn't feel uncomfortable
[2:51:56] to keep repeating. But, are they covered in the other
[2:52:00] ones? You know what I mean? Is this something that we need to
[2:52:03] look at broader? Like at a
[2:52:05] broader picture and say okay we need to make sure that this
[2:52:08] is in the standards that we
[2:52:10] require for these programs?
[2:52:14] Jennie Earl: We could. But to
[2:52:17] the best of my knowledge, and I haven't done a deep dive, so
[2:52:20] I think sextortion is the term
[2:52:22] that we have been making sure
[2:52:24] is in there. It wasn't in the
[2:52:26] document. But revenge porn is
[2:52:28] in long code, so not necessarily in this section, but it is there, so if we
[2:52:33] wanted to make sure both were there we could do that, or we
[2:52:35] could even make sure in our policy, we could have it come
[2:52:38] next month. And update it so
[2:52:41] that it's that.
[2:52:44] Matt Hymas: That's my point, I
[2:52:46] don't think that safe schools would have an issue putting it
[2:52:48] in there. But if we're going to require it for them we need
[2:52:51] to require it for all of them. 
 >> We all had to sign the
[2:52:57] disclosure agreement. [Cross-Talk]
[2:52:59] Jennie Earl: I just couldn't tell you with the others how
[2:53:02] they addressed this. Meaning they may not even have used
[2:53:04] that terminology. Yeah but they still would have addressed it in a broader
[2:53:10] scope. And I can pull up, you
[2:53:12] know you'll have to give me a few minutes, but I can look
[2:53:14] and see what our rubric is right? That would address that
[2:53:19] type of a thing where you know
[2:53:21] intimate images and what way it addresses that. This is
[2:53:25] just how this entity used it.
[2:53:33] So.Joseph Kerry: Just for
[2:53:35] clarity I want to make sure
[2:53:36] that the record is clear I'm
[2:53:38] not opposing sextortion, my thought is that we just don't
[2:53:45] lose revenge porn in that
[2:53:47] definition. So I'm looking to protect individuals who fall
[2:53:50] under either or both
[2:53:52] categories. Thank you Chair.
[2:53:55] Matt Hymas: Thank you. Member Green?
[2:53:59] Emily Green: I appreciate the clarification, I like the
[2:54:02] clarifying question there.
[2:54:04] They are different. And I guess now that that has kind
[2:54:08] of been brought forward, I
[2:54:11] think legally and practically,
[2:54:13] they do have two different
[2:54:16] definitions and purposes. So I
[2:54:19] just now wonder, unless Member
[2:54:22] Earl has just discovered something more, maybe we put
[2:54:25] this off until after lunch?
[2:54:27] Just to make sure? Or
[2:54:28] tomorrow? I don't know.
[2:54:32] Because I need to know now how
[2:54:35] that's going to look if we are
[2:54:37] doing both in those and we're
[2:54:39] asking them to include both,
[2:54:41] then what that will look
[2:54:48] like.
Jennie Earl: Okay so let me double
[2:54:48] down and this is a good reminder, sextortion is in our
[2:54:49] rubric or our recommendations. Revenge porn isn't currently.
[2:54:54] So anything that has come up
[2:54:56] to this point would align with
[2:54:58] those provisions. But that doesn't mean that we can't ask
[2:55:02] for our rubric to come forward
[2:55:04] and ask for it to align with those provisions then does
[2:55:06] that make sense? So it does align with what we have
[2:55:09] currently.
[2:55:10] Matt Hymas: So for purposes today, every one of these
[2:55:14] three aligned. And what we are
[2:55:16] saying is there's obviously
[2:55:18] some concern from everybody
[2:55:22] that revenge porn needs to be
[2:55:23] addressed. And we need to
[2:55:26] bring back a rubric that says
[2:55:29] put this in there. Make sure that these companies are
[2:55:32] addressing this.
[2:55:33] Jennie Earl: If we want to use
[2:55:36] that term I would dare say the way it's broadly and I'll have
[2:55:39] to look, I will look. But it
[2:55:41] probably still covers that, just isn't identified with
[2:55:43] that specific label in our
[2:55:46] rubrics. So --
[2:55:53] Matt Hymas: I don't want to give you an assignment but I think if you would look into
[2:55:54] that that would be helpful for purposes of right now, the
[2:55:57] motion is before us that the
[2:55:59] board approved the following.
[2:56:01] Knowing what we know about at
[2:56:03] least the third one with the
[2:56:05] change, but work is
[2:56:09] forthcoming as well. So let me restate the motion, and that
[2:56:12] is that the board approved the
[2:56:13] following. 24852, education to
[2:56:17] protect L6 abuse prevention
[2:56:19] elementary student child
[2:56:20] sexual abuse.
[2:56:21] 24846 on watch, combating trafficking through education,
[2:56:27] adult serving youth. 24850, venture safe schools, human
[2:56:32] trafficking awareness grade
[2:56:33] six. If changes were made and
[2:56:38] that's part of it. If changes were made to the curriculum
[2:56:40] discussed in committee which we have discussed here. So
[2:56:43] seeing no additional lights,
[2:56:44] let's go ahead and put this to
[2:56:46] a vote.
[2:56:51] [Members voting]
[2:57:11] Matt Hymas: Okay. That passes
[2:57:12] 12 in favor, two abstentions,
[2:57:14] one no vote, the abstention is from Member Kerry Member
[2:57:16] Green, the no vote is from Member Boggess. Back to you Chair Earl?
[2:57:21] Jennie Earl: Okay. The next
[2:57:23] item is our standards review
[2:57:25] process. And, what I am going to do is kind of go through
[2:57:32] the major changes and, I have
[2:57:35] one well, I have one section section two with a couple of
[2:57:41] changes in it, and then we will see where the discussion
[2:57:44] goes. If there's a lot of discussion then we might move
[2:57:47] it until tomorrow, if not we will go ahead and move it
[2:57:49] forward. So, just a couple of
[2:57:51] things here that I'm just
[2:57:54] going to go through this so
[2:57:56] you know there's some significant changes here. So
[2:57:59] the pre revision is that we
[2:58:01] wanted to make sure that things were not considered
[2:58:04] until they had been implemented for at least five
[2:58:06] years. And that's so that we don't just have a quick
[2:58:09] turnover of standards that
[2:58:12] they actually have time to be implemented and out there for
[2:58:14] a period of time.
[2:58:15] Under the second section, the writing committee applicants
[2:58:20] are invited to apply through a
[2:58:21] formal public request outlining qualifications and
[2:58:24] expectations, this is a change
[2:58:26] from what we've been doing, usually we've just been staff
[2:58:29] or other entities have been
[2:58:31] submitting names, this allows anybody to submit themselves.
[2:58:34] So they can put their name in
[2:58:36] through a formal process and,
[2:58:40] then they would be looked at
[2:58:41] based on qualifications and
[2:58:42] expectations.
[2:58:45] Both the writing committee,
[2:58:48] and
[2:58:51] let's see the review
[2:58:53] committee. We have asked them
[2:58:56] to establish and. Liaisons. Someone to be a spokesperson
[2:59:01] for them.
[2:59:10] And I'm just looking down
[2:59:12] here. Okay. I have some
[2:59:15] amendments during the research
[2:59:16] phase. On the number three, the
[2:59:20] committee collaboration the
[2:59:22] lead liaisons for the review committee and writing
[2:59:25] committee, this is after the board of recommendations are
[2:59:28] approved. So review committee
[2:59:30] brings the recommendations to
[2:59:31] us, we then take those recommendations and we decide which of those recommendations
[2:59:35] we want to be focused on.
[2:59:38] Those are then sent to the
[2:59:40] writing committee, so the leads for those writing
[2:59:43] committee and the review
[2:59:45] committee will meet together
[2:59:47] to review the recommendations.
[2:59:50] And board members may be present for that. So we do try
[2:59:53] to create an element of the
[2:59:55] board being available in some
[2:59:57] areas. On number five, Writing
[3:00:01] Committee presents the initial
[3:00:02] draft, that's what we've had. But they're going to present
[3:00:08] the review committee will have
[3:00:09] a little bit more engagement. That's the initial committee
[3:00:15] that was put together by board
[3:00:17] members, and we will maintain the 30 days that board members
[3:00:21] come after they have the initial draft then they can
[3:00:23] submit recommendations, and in
[3:00:26] here we have the board members may meet with stakeholders and
[3:00:28] community members while
[3:00:30] considering recommendations.
[3:00:34] And then -- sorry. Let me get
[3:00:37] the next one up here. Then we have the 30 day window right?
[3:00:41] And then those revisions come
[3:00:42] back.
[3:00:45] The board can either approve
[3:00:47] and go public, or it goes to
[3:00:49] the writing committee for
[3:00:51] additional revisions. That's
[3:00:53] on section six. And number
[3:00:58] five, this one we cut down
[3:00:59] from 90 days to 45 days, that's the public review
[3:01:03] period. And, we still have to
[3:01:07] meet the same criteria, but we're trying to find a way to
[3:01:11] kind of condense some things
[3:01:12] so that's one recommendation
[3:01:15] there. And then,
[3:01:20] that's on number seven, 40
[3:01:22] day. And I think we looked at a
[3:01:27] number of states, and usually
[3:01:29] it's 30 to 45 days if I
[3:01:30] remember correctly. Can someone confirm that? Nobody did -- I don't think anybody
[3:01:35] did 90. I think we were the only ones that were extending
[3:01:37] it for that extensive time
[3:01:39] period.
[3:01:41] So, like I said that's a
[3:01:44] recommendation on eight peer review committee lead liaisons of the writing committee are
[3:01:50] members of the board they meet to review the public comment
[3:01:53] and any additional suggestions.
[3:01:57] Matt Hymas: Can we scroll to the next screen on the page?
[3:02:00] Jennie Earl: Yeah sorry so
[3:02:03] that's different than before it allows members of the
[3:02:05] public to be involved with review and writing committee
[3:02:07] peer review committee will have more of a role in this
[3:02:11] than they previously did.
[3:02:14] Let's see, on number ten
[3:02:17] -- review peer review committee would become
[3:02:20] literally that, a review at every stage instead of just at
[3:02:23] the beginning. And then come but they don't have anything
[3:02:26] to do again. They don't have
[3:02:28] any feedback. Then on ten, the review committee reviews the
[3:02:32] updated draft for clarity and
[3:02:34] makes their final recommendations to the writing
[3:02:36] committee if there is any. And then, the rest of it is
[3:02:41] similar to what we have
[3:02:42] already. It comes to comes before us and Standards and
[3:02:46] Assessment Committee with any amendments that people have final amendments, and then the
[3:02:50] full board and then the
[3:02:50] implementation.
[3:02:53] Okay. So -- I do have an
[3:02:57] amendment, or a couple of amendments. You can do
[3:03:01] questions or whatever.
 Matt Hymas: We haven't yet put
[3:03:05] a motion from the committee.
[3:03:06] Jennie Earl: Oh my goodness. Let me do that really quick. The motion is the board
[3:03:10] approved the updated standards
[3:03:12] and process June 2026.
[3:03:15] Matt Hymas: Thank you. The motion that came from committee is that we approve
[3:03:19] the updated standards process
[3:03:20] June 2026. I know that you
[3:03:24] have an amendment, I've got
[3:03:28] -- let's go questions first I've got Vice Chair Bollinger first and then I've got
[3:03:31] Boggess, Davis, and Kerry.
[3:03:38] Matt Hymas:
[3:03:38] Amanda Bollinger: Thank you chair first of all I want to thank all of the staff that
[3:03:40] was involved in this intense process and to the committee for taking this on. This was
[3:03:44] no easy lift. I know you guys
[3:03:46] talked about it for several months and months, and I really just appreciate all the work that you've done on this.
[3:03:50] I was really impressed with all of the information and the
[3:03:53] backups. Even the process of every single state like it was
[3:03:56] really interesting to go and look at what all the different states do and there's some
[3:03:59] states that don't even have a process review it's like Massachusetts and they're one
[3:04:02] of the highest performing states. So that was really
[3:04:05] fascinating. I do appreciate
[3:04:08] the ability to find like a win win solution where there was
[3:04:13] still some ability for those
[3:04:14] that wanted to serve on the committee to have some privacy but then those that were
[3:04:18] willing to serve, I think that's a great compromise. And
[3:04:21] I love that having the review committee involved along the way I thought that was great
[3:04:24] too so thank you for all of the changes. My one question
[3:04:28] that I have is as I'm looking through all of the documents,
[3:04:31] so when I look at the document that says Utah State Board of
[3:04:33] Education standards revision process, in the pre revision
[3:04:38] it says that they can be
[3:04:39] considered after a minimum of five years of standard
[3:04:44] implementation. Then on
[3:04:46] another document it says on the standards process overview, it says starting
[3:04:50] five years or more after the implementation, and then it
[3:04:54] says that they have to be at
[3:04:55] least six years of implementation on that same document, and then when you look at the chart, the
[3:05:00] timeline chart it says ten
[3:05:02] year cycle. So, that's just
[3:05:04] really confusing. Five years? Six years? Ten years? I just
[3:05:09] think that we need to make sure that we are very clear on that timeline.
[3:05:13] >> So when we are moving is the updated. If you're looking
[3:05:15] on it it's the first document. So that would be the one that
[3:05:17] would be the official one. So, it is the very first item
[3:05:21] under their. At least it is on mine. So it says the updated,
[3:05:25] so the wording on there would
[3:05:26] say the core standards queuing rubric may not be brought
[3:05:30] forward for revision
[3:05:31] consideration for revision consideration after a minimum
[3:05:37] of five years --
[3:05:41] Amanda Bollinger: Yeah that's where I'm confused.
[3:05:43] Jennie Earl: So what would you like to do their?
[3:05:47] Amanda Bollinger: So was the
[3:05:49] intent that it be reviewed every five years or was it ten
[3:05:52] years because you did you guys
[3:05:55] mean every seven years?
 Jennie Earl: It would be
[3:05:59] closer to seven years it'd be after we improved it it would
[3:06:01] be five years this would be the implementation so that would be closer to 7 or 8
[3:06:05] years depending on the
[3:06:06] implementation cycle.
[3:06:09] Well come let's get it right.
[3:06:15] Matt Hymas: It doesn't sound like we have an amendment but
[3:06:17] we might have one coming up here because that what I'm hearing? Thank you. Let's move
[3:06:21] next to Member Boggess.
[3:06:27] Christina Boggess: Thank you, I just have a couple comments
[3:06:28] and one question. One is I don't think our teachers should have anonymity if
[3:06:33] they're on a committee. I think they should have a
[3:06:35] accountability not anonymity.
[3:06:37] If they don't want to participate in the process and have accountability then maybe
[3:06:42] they shouldn't participate in the process. And I think that
[3:06:45] anonymity needs to be removed we don't get anonymity in this room and I don't think they
[3:06:48] should get anonymity. I think
[3:06:50] their peers need to hold them accountable for what's going on in the standards writing
[3:06:53] process and their peers should be able to hold them
[3:06:56] accountable. And how they do that is governed by workplace standards. They can't harass
[3:07:01] them they can't do any of those weird things. So I think
[3:07:04] that accountability should be
[3:07:05] there, and I think we should remove that part of this.
[3:07:09] Secondly, I am concerned that we don't have enough public
[3:07:13] comment or parental input throughout this process. I
[3:07:16] know that it's in there, I just don't think we have enough of it. And then my
[3:07:20] final question that is more direct, it's you know do we
[3:07:23] know that it takes at or about
[3:07:25] eight years to come into this
[3:07:28] process right?
[3:07:29] And, get assessment and test
[3:07:35] scores back on almost a full cycle of standards
[3:07:38] implementation. So my question
[3:07:40] would be, are we scaling it back to five years because we
[3:07:44] need to? Because we're adopting bad standards? Or is there another reason that
[3:07:49] we're doing that?
[3:07:52] Matt Hymas: Okay. The five
[3:07:54] years is being addressed. With
[3:07:57] Member Bollinger is looking at a potential motion. So that's
[3:08:01] going to be up for discussion at another time. Your other
[3:08:05] two were potential motions but I don't know if we have a
[3:08:07] motion.
 Amanda Bollinger: Welcome I
[3:08:11] could make a motion but I think we would have to delay this because it would be multiple sections of this
[3:08:14] document. Or we could just direct staff to amend it based
[3:08:18] on the overarching thing. The
[3:08:20] overarching idea. It's up to you.
[3:08:24] Matt Hymas: Up to me it's calling on Member Earl. Go
[3:08:27] ahead.
 Jennie Earl:
[3:08:30] Two things, the very reason for that input, the writing
[3:08:34] committee or not the writing committee. The review
[3:08:36] committee is the committee that the legislature puts into place that does have the
[3:08:40] parents on it. Where previously that was only at
[3:08:43] the first. So we put the
[3:08:46] review committee throughout so that they could give that
[3:08:48] feedback. So, I would argue that this actually increases
[3:08:52] that. It doesn't decrease it,
[3:08:54] the anonymity piece is not
[3:08:56] actually in here. What's in
[3:08:59] here is that there is a
[3:09:02] liaison that can report out and meet with board members.
[3:09:10] And other people. So that was
[3:09:12] the intent of that. The anonymity would be the
[3:09:15] contract if that I mean often
[3:09:19] I say often, it's a standard operating procedure, so that would need to be where that is
[3:09:23] addressed. And I do agree, I
[3:09:26] feel like if someone is part of this process then people should know what's writing the standards. But they need to
[3:09:30] know that upfront. That if you're going to participate in
[3:09:33] this, then you need to know,
[3:09:35] and that's part of that qualifications and expectations that it's very
[3:09:39] clear that your name is on
[3:09:41] here. Otherwise, I just think otherwise we have people that
[3:09:48] can go out and do whatever they want.
[3:09:53] Matt Hymas: Well since the
[3:09:54] buck stops in this room --
[3:09:57] it's just hard for me come I would rather somebody say
[3:10:00] well, the standards are no good, why did you approve
[3:10:05] them? Then hey come let's go
[3:10:07] attack Mrs. Smith because she
[3:10:10] suggested bad standards. I don't know how we do that to
[3:10:13] people who are trying to help us out here. But anyway. Going
[3:10:17] down the list I've got Member
[3:10:19] Davis, next. Go ahead. Sorry,
[3:10:23] did you have a follow up Member Boggess?
[3:10:30] Christina Boggess: Quickly if I could, I don't know of any
[3:10:33] other committee by the legislature?
[3:10:36] Jennie Earl: By statute these
[3:10:38] are permitted, that's what the review committee is.
[3:10:42] Christina Boggess: So it's
[3:10:45] different for every set of standards?
[3:10:48] Jennie Earl: Yeah if you it would be. [Cross-Talk]
[3:10:52] Matt Hymas: Okay. So, who do we have next? Member Davis, go
[3:10:58] ahead.
 Cindy Davis:
[3:11:02] Is it -- when we have
[3:11:04] documents like this that have a lot of changes, it's really
[3:11:08] helpful to have a status quo
[3:11:10] document, and then strike outs of language that's being taken
[3:11:15] out and then additions, just
[3:11:16] like we do for every single
[3:11:18] board rule. So, if someone has one of those already that would be really helpful to
[3:11:25] just have that emailed out to
[3:11:26] the board really quickly.
[3:11:29] The other thing, I just wanted to mention and maybe I just
[3:11:34] need to move to amend this.
[3:11:36] But, I would amend that the
[3:11:41] liaison add the language if one volunteers. And if not, then it will be status quo and
[3:11:49] the staff will be the liaison. And if I get a second I'd like
[3:11:56] to speak to the motion.
[3:11:59] Matt Hymas: Let's formulate that motion on the screen and
[3:12:01] get it put together.
[3:12:04] It sounds like we have a potential second or a second.
[3:12:08] Not potential. But we'll make sure we get the motion
[3:12:10] correct.
[3:12:35] We blame Vice Chair Bollinger.
[3:12:38] Not you. Member Davis has a motion that we would like to get on the screen if that's
[3:12:43] okay?
[3:12:50] Cindy Davis: I would just like to amend the section that asks
[3:12:51] for a liaison for the writing
[3:12:53] committee.
[3:12:55] To have the words if one
[3:13:00] volunteers.
[3:13:03] And if not then the staff will
[3:13:06] be the liaison.
[3:13:13] >> So that would be under
[3:13:13] section one?
[3:13:23] Matt Hymas: Is that correct
[3:13:23] Member Davis? So the motion to amend is to amend the section,
[3:13:28] which if I'm correct section
[3:13:30] one bullet three, is that where you're seeing this?
[3:13:34] Okay. To amend the section one
[3:13:39] bullet three it asks for a liaison for the writing
[3:13:42] committee to have the words if
[3:13:44] one volunteers, and if not,
[3:13:48] staff will act as the liaison.
[3:13:52] So we're going to have to mess
[3:13:54] with that wording to see how it will read exactly. But go
[3:13:58] ahead and speak to your motion.
[3:14:03] Cindy Davis: I just think
[3:14:04] these people are not elected
[3:14:05] officials, and, you know, they
[3:14:09] are they're asked to come give you their expertise, write
[3:14:14] down your things, we'll tell you what we like and what we
[3:14:18] don't like, and you can make changes to what we like and what we don't like, and then
[3:14:21] even after you go away then we can still make changes to what you like and what you don't
[3:14:24] like. So, I don't think that
[3:14:27] these folks should have to be
[3:14:31] known to Chair Hymas point. And certainly shouldn't have
[3:14:35] to act as a liaison. This would essentially force one of
[3:14:39] them
[3:14:41] to do that. If one is willing,
[3:14:44] then that's just fine, but if one is not willing I think we
[3:14:48] can continue as status quo
[3:14:49] where we are having staff be the liaison between the committee and the writing
[3:14:54] folks.
[3:14:56] And I will do another one later.
[3:15:00] Matt Hymas: So thank you
[3:15:04] Member Davis. The motion is to amend section one bullet three
[3:15:05] to add the words if a committee member volunteers,
[3:15:08] otherwise staff will act as a
[3:15:10] lead liaison. I've got in the
[3:15:14] queue I've got Member Kerry,
[3:15:15] Member Green, and around the
[3:15:18] horn to Member Boggess. Is that this? Or any of these to
[3:15:23] this motion? This motion? And Member Green? This green
[3:15:29] -- this motion Member Green?
[3:15:31] Or the underlying motion?
[3:15:32] Maybe. Okay. You don't have to conjure up anything. If you
[3:15:38] don't have it you don't have
[3:15:39] it. Member Boggess go ahead.
 Christina Boggess: I would
[3:15:47] just speak against this motion I think when you come to work
[3:15:48] on these committees, part of that is defending your thinking, and there's no
[3:15:52] difference between defending your thinking before the
[3:15:54] writing committee and defending the committee's thinking before the board.
[3:15:58] There shouldn't be an apprehension to defending your
[3:16:03] ideas. If your ideas are of quality then they're going to hold up and if they're not
[3:16:07] then they're not going to pass the scrutiny test, and this idea that we can just hide
[3:16:10] under the guise of anonymity and delegate that role to
[3:16:14] staff that puts our staff in a
[3:16:15] horrible position. Case in point is the math standards.
[3:16:19] Puts our staff in a terrible position when they have to be
[3:16:23] the go between because people
[3:16:25] want to hide behind this wall
[3:16:27] of anonymity instead of being accountable. So I would just speak against the motion, I
[3:16:32] think the committee should have liaisons come and I think
[3:16:34] if their ideas are high quality ideas and they are going to pass that scrutiny
[3:16:40] test and they should be able to communicate that as professionals, they can
[3:16:43] communicate in their professional space, in their
[3:16:46] jobs, then they should also be able to communicate it before
[3:16:48] this board or before the Standards and Assessment
[3:16:50] Committee. Thank you.
[3:16:53] Matt Hymas: Okay.
[3:17:02] Member Green?
[3:17:06] Emily Green: You know in committee I had lots of questions about the liaison and the whole writing
[3:17:10] committee, and what roles, I mean I laid out a slew of
[3:17:13] questions there in detail.
[3:17:14] Like, what that relationship looks like if they get authority because they are
[3:17:19] liaison? Is that the equivalent to a board member?
[3:17:22] There's all of those logistics that come with even formalizing a position like
[3:17:25] this. We tried to develop
[3:17:28] that. First I'm wondering, did
[3:17:29] we resolve that? And did we have a document outlining what
[3:17:33] that role looks like on paper?
[3:17:35] Because that affects my vote affects my vote towards even
[3:17:41] this because I need to know if
[3:17:42] it's an official role that has that criteria outlined in
[3:17:46] print. The second is that I do
[3:17:49] believe that that writing
[3:17:52] committee, for the sake of transparency and I guess the
[3:18:01] word -- the scrutiny test before the committee is going
[3:18:04] with writing those standards
[3:18:08] -- I would like to see it. If
[3:18:10] we are going to make it
[3:18:11] formal, let's make it formal and we need to have that in anybody serving in that
[3:18:16] committee needs to have the willingness to take that
[3:18:18] position because I think it just adds quality so I would
[3:18:22] probably speak against this
[3:18:23] motion for those reasons.
[3:18:31] >> Okay. Member Green. One follow up to
[3:18:34] your own comment? Hold on one
[3:18:36] second. There you go.
[3:18:43] Member Green:
[3:18:52] Thank you. And maybe it's not
[3:18:56] the right time. I am wondering if we were able to formalize this position in writing. We
[3:19:01] are formalizing it in this draft but we haven't
[3:19:03] formalized anything yet that I
[3:19:05] know of, as far as what the
[3:19:10] duties and obligations are. If
[3:19:14] we are being in the lead and being a liaison and those are
[3:19:19] capitalized they look pretty formal. Just want to make sure we've built in that quality
[3:19:22] check.
[3:19:26] Member Kerry: Thank you chair.
[3:19:28] I support the motion and the way I envision it is you have
[3:19:31] people willing to serve on this committee then they sit
[3:19:35] around the room and say okay. Who wants to be the liaison?
[3:19:38] If nobody steps up how do you
[3:19:40] force someone to liaise? How do you say you're going to do
[3:19:44] this. So it's not anti
[3:19:47] transparency. I believe the members should be known to the
[3:19:50] public but I look at that as separate and apart from this
[3:19:53] motion which is
[3:19:56] , this has to be something
[3:19:59] voluntary. I don't think we could compel someone to assume that position if they're just
[3:20:04] not willing to serve their.
[3:20:05] Thank you.
[3:20:13] Matt Hymas: Except for staff.
[3:20:15] We will compel somebody. Okay.
[3:20:17] Member Green.
[3:20:24] Member Green:
[3:20:28] And I think Member carries
[3:20:31] argument highlights my
[3:20:32] argument. Are have we formalized this position
[3:20:38] anywhere? This formalizes the
[3:20:41] lead in this document. Member
[3:20:45] Reale, if you have something
[3:20:49] to share?
[3:20:56] Member Reale: I was just saying that in committee Megan showed us an outline of how
[3:21:04] the whole process would work and she formulated the whole
[3:21:07] workflow for the liaison picking them and I was just mentioning that from our
[3:21:11] committee meeting.
[3:21:13] Matt Hymas: It's in this document?
[3:21:17] >> We
[3:21:17] reviewed it in our committee meeting. While I have the
[3:21:22] microphone,
[3:21:25] this is my fourth year on standards and I have found
[3:21:29] that when we are able to talk to and hear from these
[3:21:32] experienced educators and folks on the writing committee
[3:21:35] we are able to better understand some of the changes they've made and why they've
[3:21:39] made those changes. It saves
[3:21:41] us time in our committee meeting. It allows us to have
[3:21:44] a better understanding of some
[3:21:46] of the nuances on a lot of these standards. I know during
[3:21:51] the SEED Standards review we
[3:21:57] heard from educators on the
[3:21:59] writing committee. They had great insight and information
[3:22:02] about -- when I teach this part of the course this is why
[3:22:05] this part is important. In our Ela standards review we had
[3:22:09] the same thing. We had someone
[3:22:11] from the writing committee come and explain different
[3:22:15] pieces of the
[3:22:20] ELA
[3:22:23] standards permit so we want to be able to talk to these
[3:22:27] educators and folks on the writing committee but we do not want to place the burden
[3:22:30] on everyone on the writing Committee to be required to
[3:22:33] show up to meetings on top of their other jobs and teaching requirements and things they
[3:22:37] have going on. The liaison was a really good compromise between requiring the writing
[3:22:43] committee to come meet with board members all the time and
[3:22:46] explain all of their decisions in their standards writing and
[3:22:49] being able to hear from and understand some of the changes
[3:22:52] or questions that we have as a committee. That is why the
[3:22:55] liaison piece came up and I
[3:22:57] think it's a real benefit to have one person from the writing committee to be able
[3:23:02] to represent those that have written these standards and
[3:23:05] help us understand the changes
[3:23:08] that they have made. I really
[3:23:10] support this liaison and I know that Megan has done a lot
[3:23:13] of work with her team to put
[3:23:17] -- to work through the process of how they'd be picked and
[3:23:19] the responsibilities and what that looks like from their
[3:23:22] perspective as well as we see their responsibility as the
[3:23:25] liaison. I highly suggest that we support this liaison piece.
[3:23:29] I think it's a really good way of balancing all the work and
[3:23:32] things they do as a writing committee member but also giving us the opportunity to
[3:23:35] have a better understanding of some of the changes they have made.
[3:23:39] Matt Hymas: Thank you. You mentioned a document that is under Review and standards. Is
[3:23:45] that in backup? Can you tell
[3:23:46] us which one that is? There is
[3:23:49] quite a list here.
[3:23:57] Member Reale
[3:24:04] Matt Hymas: There are six?
[3:24:12] >> The standards process is
[3:24:12] the review document it's the third one down. The one
[3:24:15] currently on the screen as well.
[3:24:20] Matt Hymas: Thank you.
[3:24:22] Alright.
[3:24:25] I forget what the motion is if
[3:24:28] I'm honest with you.
[3:24:31] We are on an amendment. It is
[3:24:36] section one bullet three. I
[3:24:38] just can't remember
[3:24:41] . There we go. If a committee
[3:24:43] member volunteers -- if no one volunteers then staff will act
[3:24:48] as lead liaison. That is the
[3:24:50] motion before us. We have
[3:24:52] Member Earle,
[3:25:01] Member Kerry and Member Davis.
[3:25:11] Member Davis: I just want to make it clear that I support
[3:25:16] the liaison idea and I think it could actually be quite
[3:25:18] helpful. But if nobody on the
[3:25:20] committee is willing -- depending on what. Maybe it's
[3:25:25] a highly controversial space
[3:25:26] or -- I don't know. I just think we need a fallback. If nobody is willing to do it
[3:25:30] then we need to be able to
[3:25:32] have staff to do it. That's all. Everything else can stay
[3:25:35] the same. The whole process with the liaison can stay the
[3:25:39] same but we do need a fallback if somebody is unwilling to
[3:25:42] act in that role.
[3:25:45] Matt Hymas: The motion is to
[3:25:46] amend section one bullet three
[3:25:48] to add the words, if no one
[3:25:52] volunteers staff will act as the lead liaison. Let's go
[3:25:55] ahead and put it to a vote.
[3:26:01] [Members voting]
[3:26:17] That passes nine in favor six opposed those opposed being
[3:26:22] Member Boothe Member Green Member Reale Member Wood
[3:26:24] Member Boggess and Member
[3:26:26] Brinton. Okay. Next we've got
[3:26:29] Member Kerry.
[3:26:34] Member Kerry: Thank you chair.
[3:26:40] Just speaking to the main
[3:26:41] motion
[3:26:45] , are the members of the
[3:26:48] Writing Review Committee and
[3:26:55] -- the writing committee and
[3:26:56] the review Committee, are
[3:26:59] these paid positions?
[3:27:03] Matt Hymas: The writing
[3:27:05] committee yes. The review committee no. Is that what I'm
[3:27:08] understanding?
[3:27:16] Member Kerry:
[3:27:18] It's my understanding from the discussion that the writing committee members are paid. Is
[3:27:24] that like a jury stipend or by
[3:27:26] the hour? I can't imagine anyone's getting rich off of it but I would just like to
[3:27:30] know. I'm trying to better
[3:27:32] understand because to me this is a crucial part to the
[3:27:34] anonymity component. If people are receiving public funds for
[3:27:38] their service I'm not sure they should be able to remain
[3:27:41] anonymous as a matter of good
[3:27:42] policy. That is why I am
[3:27:47] inquiring down those roads.
[3:27:52] >> Megan Everett director of Teaching and Learning.
[3:27:55] Currently in the legislation the review Committee cannot be
[3:27:58] paid as it is stated in the code so that would have to be
[3:28:01] changed from the writing Committee is paid in alignment
[3:28:04] with participant support costs so if there is a reason for
[3:28:07] them to travel here, they use the government rate and we
[3:28:12] help support that and then
[3:28:13] they are paid approximately $30 an hour. I think exactly
[3:28:17] $30 an hour. Depending on the
[3:28:21] budget available sometimes that is up to a max of and we
[3:28:24] give them an estimate of the amount of time that we expect
[3:28:26] it will take. Obviously
[3:28:28] sometimes revisions take longer than originally
[3:28:31] allocated and we reallocate
[3:28:33] for them.
[3:28:39] Member Kerry: We just went
[3:28:41] through this process with the
[3:28:42] math standards. Right? We had a writing committee for that I
[3:28:45] imagine. Do we know approximately how much in
[3:28:49] total members of the writing committee were paid for their
[3:28:51] services at this $30 an hour
[3:28:53] reimbursement rate?
[3:28:56] Matt Hymas: Are we going off in a different direction here?
[3:28:59] Is the number relevant to an anonymity
[3:29:05] ? Are we saying well if they
[3:29:06] made $500, keep anonymity. If
[3:29:12] they made 5000, don't. There
[3:29:18] is no motion. We already voted. We are back to
[3:29:22] questions. Go ahead.
[3:29:27] Member Kerry: I do think it's important. Just to have a
[3:29:30] better understanding. One,
[3:29:35] just to have a better general
[3:29:40] awareness and I think it does
[3:29:42] tilt the scales. If it's a
[3:29:45] jury stipend I'm less concerned but I don't know
[3:29:48] whether this is a 50 hour
[3:29:50] undertaking, if this is a 500
[3:29:54] hour commitment or if this is
[3:29:55] a 500 zero hour commitment. I think those questions are important. I'm not asking to
[3:30:00] know what a particular member
[3:30:02] of the committee may or may
[3:30:03] not have been paid, but just
[3:30:07] in general, I would like to
[3:30:10] know how much was paid to this committee as a whole to write
[3:30:13] the math standards.
[3:30:16] Matt Hymas: Do we as a board determine that as we send things back and say work on
[3:30:21] this again? Write? It's not --
[3:30:24] could we give a set? The math standards I'm hearing math
[3:30:28] standards but when this is over we still have this
[3:30:31] process for standards
[3:30:33] revision. Right? So doesn't it
[3:30:37] depend on us how much they would get paid? Or for how
[3:30:41] long they would work on the
[3:30:42] standards? So that would vary.
[3:30:45] I guess that is my question.
[3:30:48] Or my point. Not question.
[3:30:56] Member Kerry: Short. But it was my understanding that some
[3:31:00] members of the math Writing Committee were begging for mercy because we kept sending
[3:31:03] revisions back. So again I'm
[3:31:05] just looking at it. As we are looking at this whole process
[3:31:08] in this entirety, and I
[3:31:11] understand there are statutes
[3:31:13] that govern a portion of this,
[3:31:16] but the board also has flexibility. So just knowing what we have paid to date to
[3:31:20] the Math Writing Committee, I don't think that is rocket
[3:31:25] science. I think that's a line
[3:31:26] item on a ledger somewhere.
[3:31:31] Matt Hymas:
[3:31:31] Megan, I don't want you to throw something out if you
[3:31:36] don't have it.
[3:31:40] Megan: I can tell you what we paid for the math standards in
[3:31:45] total. I do not know the breakdown of what specifically
[3:31:47] went to the writers and the number of writers we started
[3:31:50] with some years ago and the
[3:31:52] number of writers. Are remaining standing might not be the same so it's all
[3:31:56] governed by our participant
[3:31:57] support cost policy.
[3:32:01] For math standards it's been
[3:32:04] about $82,000. Typically we
[3:32:07] budget about $40,000 to $50,000. With how long math
[3:32:11] has gone on it's taken more.
[3:32:14] Math started with about 50
[3:32:15] writers. PE standards, by
[3:32:20] comparison, are less robust than the math standards. They
[3:32:26] needed fewer writers. They've
[3:32:27] allocated about $14,000 for the process right now.
[3:32:31] Matt Hymas: So now we want to
[3:32:34] say well we have 50 who have started. Here's those people
[3:32:36] who have jumped ship in here are those who have stayed on.
[3:32:40] Right? You talk about anonymity I worry about it. I
[3:32:44] guess that's my short thing
[3:32:46] but go ahead, Member Kerry.
[3:32:55] Member Kerry: Thank you chair. The other thing I just want to make sure I have this written
[3:33:00] down correctly. We're going
[3:33:01] from a 90 day comment period
[3:33:04] to a reduction of a 45 day comment period. Is that
[3:33:08] correct? And just if I could
[3:33:10] speak to that, I'm concerned
[3:33:14] because I think about over the
[3:33:15] summer. I think it's really difficult to get messaging
[3:33:19] through to the public when
[3:33:22] they are on vacation or on
[3:33:24] trips and I also think at the end of the year that
[3:33:27] Thanksgiving and Christmas,
[3:33:32] new year's period, that 45 days evaporates really
[3:33:38] quickly. So even though maybe
[3:33:42] much of the year 45 days is
[3:33:44] appropriate I think 45 really jeopardizes the public's
[3:33:47] ability to be aware of changing standards that are
[3:33:49] going to be in place now
[3:33:52] apparently for ten years or seven years. And I appreciate
[3:33:56] that. I appreciate the
[3:33:57] consistency. I appreciate the
[3:34:00] savings to school districts by a longer term. But I am very
[3:34:04] concerned about the reduction
[3:34:07] from 90 days to 45 days. I
[3:34:09] think we effectively cut out
[3:34:11] parent feedback with that
[3:34:14] reduction. And the anonymity
[3:34:19] -- again, if they are
[3:34:21] receiving public funds I think it is bad policy to say you
[3:34:24] are being paid by the Utah
[3:34:26] State Board of Education and you have the right to remain
[3:34:29] anonymous. I don't think that
[3:34:31] is good policy. So I will be
[3:34:33] voting against this proposal
[3:34:37] if we can't address those
[3:34:40] items. Thank you, chair.
[3:34:45] Matt Hymas: Okay. I've got
[3:34:48] vice chair Bollinger and then
[3:34:49] Member Davis.
 Amanda Bollinger: Thank you. I
[3:34:55] actually have a motion ready and with a second I'd like to speak to it. The motion is
[3:35:00] that the board amend the
[3:35:01] revision process. I'm on the Utah State Board of Education
[3:35:05] Standards revision process. So that the board amend the
[3:35:08] revision process bullet two by
[3:35:10] striking five and replacing it
[3:35:12] by seven so it would read,
[3:35:16] the core standards queuing
[3:35:19] rubric may only be brought forward for revision
[3:35:22] considering after a minimum of seven years of standard
[3:35:24] implementation.
[3:35:27] Matt Hymas: We have a second. Thank you Vice Chair
[3:35:30] Bollinger.
[3:35:33] Amanda Bollinger: Thank you. We've had a lot of discussion
[3:35:37] about the timing of standards and the impact it has in
[3:35:39] schools and classrooms and on teachers and funding and if
[3:35:42] you are changing things every five years and you're having
[3:35:45] to get new curriculum and new assessments it's very
[3:35:48] expensive and it leads to teacher burnout and not
[3:35:51] necessarily improvement of student learning. Especially
[3:35:53] when we are changing the
[3:35:54] standards, we are also changing the assessments so
[3:35:59] we're moving the target. We're not even comparing apples to
[3:36:02] apples anymore if we're
[3:36:04] changing it so frequently. The seven years instead of ten let me just explain a little bit.
[3:36:08] If you look at the chart that
[3:36:10] shows what the process is, it
[3:36:13] typically takes three years. If you are doing a review then
[3:36:17] rewriting them then the earliest you can put new
[3:36:19] standards into place, it keeps
[3:36:23] you up at that ten year cycle. Starting the cuing at seven
[3:36:26] years allows that so that's
[3:36:28] the reason for the change from the five to the seven. As I
[3:36:30] was talking to Megan,
[3:36:34] typically the review goes out
[3:36:36] to LEAs to get feedback on what's going well with the standards and what needs to
[3:36:45] change. You can start that at
[3:36:47] year seven and then provide it annually. It doesn't mean that
[3:36:50] it has to trigger any changes yet if it's not needed. We don't want to change them if there's nothing needed to
[3:36:56] change. This also is written
[3:36:59] to allow us to change standards if there's a change
[3:37:02] in the law and it also allows
[3:37:04] the board to basically retain the ability to request a change in the standards. If
[3:37:08] there is some reason, whatever
[3:37:12] is happening in the world or whatever we feel like our
[3:37:14] students aren't performing,
[3:37:17] we can still have the power to
[3:37:20] do that.
[3:37:25] Member Davis: I just have a
[3:37:30] question on this. Either on
[3:37:32] the five years or the seven
[3:37:33] years. If there is some big
[3:37:36] scientific discovery or
[3:37:38] something that no one knew, do
[3:37:42] we have to wait six or 7 or 5
[3:37:45] more years before that could
[3:37:52] be added
[3:37:54] if the board chooses to add it or are we definitely on hold
[3:37:58] until seven years?
[3:38:02] Amanda Bollinger: Thank you
[3:38:03] for that question. The way that I read it is that this
[3:38:06] still allows us to start it earlier if we need to for the
[3:38:08] exact reasons you are talking about. And again just like the
[3:38:11] Standards and Assessment Committee had just decided to
[3:38:14] do with the social Studies
[3:38:15] standards, the changes with
[3:38:18] the elementary, you are not
[3:38:22] doing a holistic one. You are doing a partial one. So it
[3:38:26] allows the standards and Assessment Committee to have
[3:38:27] that flexibility from the way
[3:38:31] I understand it.
 Matt Hymas:
[3:38:34] Member Earl.
[3:38:38] Member Earle: I'm actually
[3:38:42] going to speak against this and this is the reason why. It
[3:38:45] will not be on the queuing rubric. Right now everything
[3:38:48] is queued every year. This
[3:38:50] makes it so that it is after
[3:38:52] five years, which does not mean at five years we are
[3:38:57] going to be redoing it. I worry that at seven years it
[3:39:05] may make it so that it's harder to actually redo
[3:39:08] standards if that makes sense
[3:39:10] versus the five years. It's a quick turnaround. It allows
[3:39:14] that space and then it is on the queuing rubric. The
[3:39:17] queuing rubric does not force it to be brought forward. It
[3:39:20] just starts showing up and we
[3:39:21] are starting to ask questions.
[3:39:23] So I actually think I would
[3:39:28] like the five and that is kind of where we went back and forth quite a bit in our
[3:39:31] committee on that. I just
[3:39:33] wouldn't want the seven to be used as an excuse to say we
[3:39:37] are waiting for seven before we start really looking at
[3:39:40] something if it needs to be
[3:39:41] addressed. So anyways. And I still think you are right. I
[3:39:47] want it further out but right now everything every year is
[3:39:50] brought forward which is just not a good use of time because
[3:39:53] we've already -- if we have
[3:39:56] done standards why are we queuing it up every year to
[3:39:58] look at? It should be the five year and then we begin that
[3:40:01] process so I would err on the
[3:40:05] five.
[3:40:10] Matt Hymas:
[3:40:10] Member Brinton.
[3:40:15] Member Brinton:
[3:40:30] I wasn't clear on this because
[3:40:33] I thought to do a whole overhaul of the standards it was a 5 or 6 year queue and we
[3:40:37] were trying to spread it out to more of a ten year queue.
[3:40:39] If we needed to do small
[3:40:40] revisions we already do that.
[3:40:53] Member Earle:
[3:40:59] The key thing here is the standards implementation.
[3:41:02] Standards are not after we pass them it takes about two
[3:41:04] years before the implementation so it does equal a seven year spread.
[3:41:08] From the time we've approved the standard to the time we
[3:41:10] start queuing them. So with a
[3:41:13] five year otherwise it would
[3:41:15] end up being more of an almost
[3:41:18] nine year implementation.
[3:41:23] Member Kerry: I have a motion to amend and that would be to
[3:41:28] add the phrase at the end,
[3:41:31] after implementation to add the phrase or sooner if good
[3:41:37] cause is shown.
[3:41:40] Matt Hymas: Do we have a second? Do you want to speak
[3:41:43] to that?
[3:41:47] Member Kerry: I just think
[3:41:50] that the way it reads now, it
[3:41:54] seems the only one time we
[3:41:56] have to make these revision considerations is after a minimum of seven years and I
[3:42:00] think that takes away a lot of
[3:42:01] discretionary decision making
[3:42:03] by any party, including the board. That is why I think it
[3:42:08] is a good addition.
[3:42:12] Matt Hymas:
[3:42:12] Member Davis, you are in the
[3:42:16] queue. Right?
[3:42:21] Okay. So the motion before us
[3:42:24] is that we add to the motion
[3:42:30] before us. Excuse me. The
[3:42:36] amendment is to add to the end after implementation or sooner
[3:42:39] unless good cause is shown.
[3:42:44] Instead of unless, just put
[3:42:50] if. Okay.
[3:42:56] Amanda Bollinger: Thank you. Curious to know from staff
[3:42:59] because I do agree if there's some reason we need to change
[3:43:02] them I want to make sure that we retain that power. From
[3:43:05] staff's perspective do we need to add this language or is
[3:43:08] that already embedded into the process where we could change
[3:43:11] this? I also don't want to
[3:43:13] confuse staff on what the
[3:43:17] definition of,
[3:43:22] if good cause is shown, would
[3:43:26] mean.
[3:43:46] Matt Hymas: What are we
[3:43:48] waiting on?
[3:43:54] >> Sorry. Can you repeat the
[3:43:56] question? I was pulling up my policy so now I've got my reference.
[3:44:01] Amanda Bollinger: Board member
[3:44:05] Kerry
[3:44:08] is saying that we want to make
[3:44:11] sure we retain the right to implement these or do them sooner if we feel like there's
[3:44:14] a good reason to do that. I agree with that intent. I
[3:44:17] worry about it being part of
[3:44:20] this queuing portion. I'm
[3:44:21] wondering without that wording attached to the five year
[3:44:24] piece or the seven year piece, do we already have that right
[3:44:29] or does it need to be
[3:44:29] explicitly outlined?
[3:44:35] >> Not in this document. In
[3:44:35] your policy 3002 that governs all of the standards review
[3:44:39] processes there is for
[3:44:41] example. This isn't the entirety of it but for example
[3:44:44] part six is legislative driven standards review that allows
[3:44:48] for say if there is legislation that changes
[3:44:50] things then you can go in and initiate a targeted standards
[3:44:54] review process.
[3:44:57] So there is exceptions allowed within your policy to step
[3:45:01] outside of the timeline that
[3:45:02] is being discussed today if
[3:45:04] there is good cause.
[3:45:11] Amanda Bollinger: Follow up
[3:45:11] please. I actually don't mind
[3:45:13] that language that you have. Just where it is written I would only support it if it
[3:45:17] was under the next bullet so I'm going to have to speak
[3:45:20] against the current amendment.
[3:45:33] Member Lear: I'm concerned about who determines what is
[3:45:41] good cause and how subjective that might be. This seems like
[3:45:44] a burdensome, expensive --
[3:45:48] granted very crucial but burdensome and expensive process. I don't want to be in
[3:45:52] the position of three board
[3:45:54] members saying that we should review standards and so I'm in
[3:45:57] favor of like tighter
[3:46:01] guardrails is a bit of a
[3:46:05] contradiction in terms but I
[3:46:08] am in favor of a tighter time
[3:46:10] frame. I do agree with Amanda that the statement is in the
[3:46:15] wrong place. So I could also support it if it is in a different place but
[3:46:21] I am really reluctant to
[3:46:23] shorten the time period and
[3:46:26] I'm also -- the good cause
[3:46:30] shown makes me nervous. I
[3:46:33] think this board has not shown
[3:46:34] enough restraint sometimes in
[3:46:36] the things we do and boards
[3:46:39] come and go but I'm concerned
[3:46:42] that
[3:46:44] we could start a process
[3:46:48] that is double Dutch I don't want to make it too easy for a
[3:46:52] board to start this process. I know we could change our
[3:46:55] policies and all of that so
[3:46:56] maybe that is a pipe dream but I just had to express that and
[3:47:01] I do think it needs to be
[3:47:02] moved if we keep it in.
[3:47:09] Matt Hymas: I'm going to pause for a second. We've had some
[3:47:12] discussion on the location of
[3:47:14] this. We have hit our cap on amendments to amendments and
[3:47:18] so dependent on this side
[3:47:20] conversation,
[3:47:23] there could be a motion to
[3:47:25] withdraw or we just take and
[3:47:30] without objection, remove this type thing. Just waiting for
[3:47:35] these two to battle it out.
[3:47:37] No? No throwing? Member Kerry, go ahead.
[3:47:47] Member Kerry:
[3:47:50] Thank you. Based on the discussions I've had I will
[3:47:54] make a motion to withdraw my
[3:47:55] motion to amend as I will be appending it to the third
[3:47:58] bullet point in a subsequent
[3:48:00] motion. So with that, if there's a second I will make
[3:48:04] my motion to withdraw my amendment.
[3:48:08] Matt Hymas: There is a second.
[3:48:10] Is there in the opposition to withdrawing that amendment?
[3:48:13] Not hearing any I'm going to
[3:48:14] go right back to you, Member
[3:48:21] Kerry.
[3:48:25] I was distracted. I believe
[3:48:28] somebody else of course. I
[3:48:31] always blame somebody. So the motion is that the core
[3:48:36] standards queuing rubric may only be brought forward for
[3:48:39] revision consideration after a
[3:48:40] minimum of seven years of
[3:48:42] standards implementation.
[3:48:48] I don't see any -- I'm
[3:48:51] hesitant to go right into
[3:48:53] voting since the individual who spoke against seven is in
[3:48:57] a side conversation and I don't know how long I can keep
[3:49:01] talking to give her time. Okay. She turned her light off
[3:49:06] which means we are taking that
[3:49:08] as we are ready. Let's open voting and put this forward.
[3:49:15] [Members voting]
[3:49:52] Voting is open.
[3:50:13] That passes 12 in favor three
[3:50:16] opposed. Those opposed being
[3:50:22] Member Kerry, Member Earle and
[3:50:26] Member Boggess. Member Davis, I know you are queued up but with the actions that just
[3:50:33] happened, I'm going to go back
[3:50:36] to Member Kerry.
[3:50:40] Member Kerry: I would like to make a motion and that motion
[3:50:44] would be to add the language,
[3:50:48] or sooner if good cause is
[3:50:50] shown, following the third bullet
[3:50:54] point instead of the second bullet point where it was
[3:50:56] originally posted.
[3:50:59] Matt Hymas: The motion has been stated. It is seconded.
[3:51:03] Do you want to speak to that Kim seeing no lights on this
[3:51:06] amendment,
[3:51:10] let's go ahead and put it to a
[3:51:14] vote.
[3:51:21] Voting is open.
[3:51:29] [Members voting]
[3:51:39] That passes unanimously. Over
[3:51:43] to you, Member Davis.
[3:51:50] Member Davis:
[3:51:54] can I just add that on number
[3:51:57] four I think it was it says in that step that the lead
[3:52:00] liaison for the writing committee and the liaison for the parent review committee
[3:52:05] meet together to review what the writing committee has
[3:52:08] written. It said board members
[3:52:10] may attend this. Could the
[3:52:14] Standards Committee flesh out
[3:52:16] which board members may attend
[3:52:19] and to what degree of
[3:52:22] participation. Are they there
[3:52:25] to try to -- those individual board members give feedback and try to change or give
[3:52:30] information on it? Or does the
[3:52:33] only feedback that goes back to the writing committee come
[3:52:35] from the Standards Committee
[3:52:37] and the full board? And/ or the full board? I'm hoping we
[3:52:44] can flesh that out. It's in
[3:52:47] number four.
[3:52:50] Matt Hymas: It's the second bullet in section three.
[3:52:53] Member Earle.
[3:52:59] Member Earle: But they are
[3:53:04] meeting on is what the board
[3:53:07] approved. So the board is approving recommendations.
[3:53:10] This meeting would be the liaisons from the two committees and board members
[3:53:13] that wanted to attend. We can flesh out whatever you want to
[3:53:16] flesh out but I want to be clear. It's not the writing
[3:53:19] that
[3:53:21] has started.
[3:53:24] Okay. Here's the recommendation that the board
[3:53:28] approved. So to say no
[3:53:30] discussion might be
[3:53:32] counterproductive. It's probably not to have them
[3:53:37] there if you're going to say here's your board. Here's the
[3:53:40] board recommendation. I'm surprised we didn't get any
[3:53:43] questions on it over the last
[3:53:44] week. If there's still a lot
[3:53:48] more work we are happy to -- the committee is happy to still work and people can send
[3:53:52] us those questions. We are not
[3:53:54] in a crunch. Right? If you feel like there is some more
[3:53:57] work we can accept those questions and continue to work
[3:54:00] as a committee on it. I am just throwing it out there
[3:54:03] because we have a few
[3:54:04] amendments. 
 >> I will move to postpone
[3:54:10] this back to committee so that
[3:54:11] chair
[3:54:16] Earle can work on her amendments there and other board members
[3:54:21] can as well if they would like.
[3:54:25] Matt Hymas:
[3:54:26] It has been seconded. Is there any opposition to this? It's
[3:54:31] moved. We have two more action
[3:54:32] items. We have lunch here and I think we should probably
[3:54:36] break for that. Does that work
[3:54:37] for you, Chair Earle?
[3:54:47] yes. Let's pause for lunch.
[3:54:54] Jennie Earl: If you are doing cornhole with us I understand
[3:54:57] we are doing it in the basement. If you want to come
[3:54:59] play a quick round of competition and also get your
[3:55:03] lunch. I do have a blackberry
[3:55:05] jam for the winter. I'm just telling you. I'm just throwing
[3:55:08] that out there for anybody
[3:55:09] listening. Bring your cornhole game downstairs and we will
[3:55:16] get it set up.
[3:57:38] [Recessed for lunch]
[4:48:40] Matt Hymas:
[4:48:42] All right board members. Our 30 minute lunch has gone over
[4:48:46] 50. Jennie, I need a report on
[4:48:51] this cornhole. Because we are
[4:48:53] gathering together here, let's get a report.
[4:48:59] Jennie Earl: I will tell you
[4:49:00] Todd and Greg were our top point getters today so you can
[4:49:03] congratulate them. There was a dispersal of the others. I
[4:49:07] can't remember scores and stuff but we had four top
[4:49:10] winners. Kelsey was in their.
[4:49:12] So anyways yeah. Good stuff.
[4:49:15] And they got into the 70s. There was quite a bit of points because we were
[4:49:19] accumulating them.
[4:49:21] Matt Hymas: I heard that Greg may have been cheating? There
[4:49:25] he is in the back.
[4:49:26] Okay.
[4:49:31] [Laughs]
[4:49:35] Let's go ahead and get
[4:49:38] started. We are still in our
[4:49:42] Standards and assessment
[4:49:43] report out. We are on agenda
[4:49:47] item 4.7
[4:49:52] . We are going to go back to
[4:49:53] Chair Earle. I saw a light
[4:49:57] come on. Is this in anticipation of the next
[4:50:00] agenda item? Perfect. Let's go ahead and begin.
[4:50:05] Jennie Earl: The motion coming out of committee is that the
[4:50:08] board repeal the 2022 model
[4:50:11] policy and adopt the 2026
[4:50:13] Model Policy Draft Board on second and final reading and I
[4:50:18] do have an amendment.
[4:50:19] Matt Hymas: Okay. The motion that came out of committee is
[4:50:24] that the board repeal the 2022
[4:50:25] model policy and adopt the
[4:50:27] 2026 model Policy Draft 4 on
[4:50:34] second and final reading. Back
[4:50:36] to you Chair Earle.
[4:50:41] Jennie Earl:
[4:50:41] We had some question at the end of our committee meeting
[4:50:46] on a provision related to
[4:50:47] sensitive materials.
[4:50:51] If we could add a provision that said other items -- my
[4:50:55] motion does
[4:51:00] -- I reached out to AAG Goff and he had a motion that he
[4:51:08] recommended and that is the motion I'm going to be making
[4:51:10] here.
[4:51:14] 4.8 maybe? No. 4.7?
[4:51:21] Matt Hymas: So we are looking
[4:51:27] at draft four and you are
[4:51:30] looking at section four?
[4:51:34] Jennie Earl: Yes. It is 4.7
[4:51:37] and if you go into document,
[4:51:41] draft four, it is item number four on page ten. I'm just
[4:51:48] telling you where we are at.
[4:51:50] I'm going to hang on a second.
Matt
[4:51:56] Hymas: One more clarity. Sorry. You said seven then you
[4:51:57] said four. I'm on page ten where it says materials removed.
[4:52:01] Jennie Earl: No. Page ten and
[4:52:05] it is four.
 Matt Hymas:
[4:52:10] For starts on page nine and
[4:52:13] finishes on page ten.
[4:52:18] Jennie Earl:
[4:52:21] It should say concerns of sensitive material challenges alleging the materials
[4:52:26] contained sensitive material. Do you see where that is at?
[4:52:29] It's further up. No. Is that
[4:52:32] right? Are you in draft 4?
[4:52:42] Is that page ten? Go down with
[4:52:47] . That is page nine. Where is
[4:52:50] my glasses? It should start
[4:52:54] with concerns of sensitive
[4:52:56] material. Challenges alleging the material. So wherever that
[4:53:00] is.
[4:53:10] Am I -- is this right?
[4:53:15] Matt Hymas: It looks like it's
[4:53:21] 4A on page six. That is where
[4:53:25] it says concerns of sensitive
[4:53:26] materials.
[4:53:33] >> 4A does not say that. Not
[4:53:37] on draft 4.
[4:53:50] What am I off on, then? Sorry.
[4:53:56] It will be page six on yours. I don't know why. I put that
[4:54:01] on wrong. It is 4A right there. Now I've got to
[4:54:08] go find my amendment. It is on
[4:54:10] page six. My apologies. I don't know where I messed up
[4:54:14] on that. Okay. So we can leave
[4:54:19] animal abuse in. In code it is obscene animal abuse mean
[4:54:26] something specific but animal abuse can stay. We need to
[4:54:29] strike as referenced in
[4:54:31] section 76-5C-10.
[4:54:45] Obscene animal abuse
[4:54:48] has a very specific term. So it wouldn't -- okay. Let me
[4:54:54] just explain. This is what
[4:54:56] happened in committee. The
[4:54:57] question about other was what was brought up. Obscene animal abuse is listed under the
[4:55:03] legal section so it can't be listed here. So we need to
[4:55:07] strike obscene and then strike out as
[4:55:18] referenced.
[4:55:23] Matt Hymas: So the motion is
[4:55:25] to strike obscene and as
[4:55:26] referenced in section
[4:55:37] 676-5C-10.
[4:55:37] Jennie Earl: The question came
[4:55:38] up, can sensitive materials be
[4:55:43] other than sexualized content or pornography or that kind of
[4:55:46] thing and the answer is yes.
[4:55:47] But if it has a legal piece, it has to be under the legal
[4:55:52] section. This section says other enlisted are some things
[4:55:55] that could be considered if they meet the criteria.
[4:55:59] Matt Hymas: So we are not removing the legal
[4:56:01] requirement. I want to make it clear that we are not removing
[4:56:04] that. Member Lear, go ahead.
[4:56:12] Member Lear: I don't know who
[4:56:18] added this. Et it bothers me.
[4:56:21] Does that suggest it's open
[4:56:26] ended?
[4:56:29] Jennie Earl: It could be other things. An entity could have
[4:56:32] other things that they --
[4:56:36] Member Lear: In terms of a
[4:56:42] model policy, that troubles me because I think we should
[4:56:47] either state what we think
[4:56:48] should be included or -- we've
[4:56:53] got obscene animal abuse or some variation of that in.
[4:56:56] Once you start throwing
[4:56:57] etceteras into policies, it makes suggestions that I'm not
[4:57:06] necessarily comfortable -- I
[4:57:07] think this is too broad and broadening it one whit offends
[4:57:12] me so et-cetera bothers me. You explained that yes you
[4:57:15] wanted to have it in there. It's not an oversight.
[4:57:19] Jennie Earl: It's not an oversight. The reason why it
[4:57:22] is in there is because there could be other things that are
[4:57:24] considered. If you look at the
[4:57:27] material it constitutes material not educationally
[4:57:30] suitable to the age of the students. I don't think we could guess at all of the
[4:57:34] possible things that could fall under that so it's going
[4:57:37] to be that committee that will
[4:57:38] make that decision. And this
[4:57:42] is subjective, not objective
[4:57:46] materials.
[4:57:55] (Indistinct)
[4:57:55] Matt Hymas: Okay. So the
[4:57:58] motion before us is to strike
[4:58:02] obscene as referenced in the
[4:58:05] section 76-five c-ten. I've
[4:58:11] got Vice Chair Bollinger.
[4:58:17] Amanda Bollinger: Thank you. When I listened to the committee discussion about
[4:58:20] that there was some discussion about some of these other
[4:58:22] words in the same section since we are talking about
[4:58:25] this page six. So my question would be to the maker of the
[4:58:28] motion. The words violence and self-harm that are in here. I
[4:58:32] know that Member Brinton
[4:58:34] brought up a great point in committee that we talk about
[4:58:38] wars in history that have violence. We are required by
[4:58:41] law to teach about self-harm in our health classes. So is
[4:58:45] this going to prevent any of that content from being in the
[4:58:48] library? I just feel like are
[4:58:50] we getting two different
[4:58:52] requirements to a school
[4:58:56] ? Do those words have to be in
[4:58:58] there? What you are doing is saying
[4:59:04] it's not just pornography that would require something to not
[4:59:07] be age appropriate. It could be language. It could be
[4:59:10] double Dutch by taking those out you are saying well it's
[4:59:13] really not the other. You could do other etc. Which doesn't make sense but this
[4:59:16] gives us ideas of things that would not be appropriate. Yes
[4:59:20] you are going to talk about self-harm but once again
[4:59:22] material is not educationally suitable to the age of the
[4:59:25] students and it would be a
[4:59:29] group of parents and educators that are making that decision.
[4:59:32] I think if you are talking about your health curriculum
[4:59:35] and stuff, I'm sure you've got people that can say no. This
[4:59:41] is educationally suitable. I would think. And the same
[4:59:44] thing with vulgarity. That you could weigh that out according
[4:59:47] to the age of the students. That is why it is subjective
[4:59:51] is that it allows for that criteria with the community
[4:59:54] group.
[5:00:02] >> Thank you for the explanation then maybe we can
[5:00:03] track this to AAG Cooper because the section it is written in is not the age
[5:00:10] appropriate section. It's the
[5:00:12] library material review. So the way that I read it makes
[5:00:15] it seem like it should be
[5:00:18] removed if it has those things
[5:00:21] in it. So AAG, maybe you can help us understand if we put
[5:00:28] those words in would it constitute the need to remove any materials if they have
[5:00:31] that in there? Or would it be subjective up to the
[5:00:33] committee's?
[5:00:39] >> It's got to run through the committee and then the
[5:00:40] committee decides Paramount we
[5:00:42] had some discussion whether or not if somebody ran it through the committee and it was found
[5:00:47] to be a subjectively sensitive material that does pull it out
[5:00:51] of the entire school district,
[5:00:56] though. The entire LEA. What
[5:01:00] we need them to do is be better about deciding whether
[5:01:03] they're running things through the committee because it should not only really be for
[5:01:07] the things that are
[5:01:08] challenged.
 >> Maybe I could do a scenario
[5:01:12] to help me. So if a parent wanted to challenge a book that was in the library about
[5:01:16] the Civil War because it has
[5:01:17] violence in it, it would then trigger a removal from the
[5:01:22] whole district of that book?
 >> If it is actually found to
[5:01:25] be subjectively sensitive material. I think that if it
[5:01:29] was found in an age
[5:01:30] appropriate school, because that is one of the things you
[5:01:35] look at in the subjective, I
[5:01:38] think it would be fine. It's
[5:01:40] just if you actually say it is subjectively sensitive for
[5:01:43] everybody is when it gets pulled.
 >> Would it be pulled as soon
[5:01:47] as it's challenged?
[5:01:49] >> No. After the review.
[5:01:55] Matt Hymas: I've got Member
[5:01:56] Boggess and then Member Earle.
[5:02:07] Jennie Earl: Remember that this is a review of materials
[5:02:09] so there is a question of
[5:02:11] whether it is a sensitive material. This question deals
[5:02:14] with -- sensitive material is
[5:02:19] the broad -- it could be both. Right? They're going to do a quick review to see if it's
[5:02:24] objective. If it's not objective then it goes into
[5:02:26] subjective, and it has a whole
[5:02:30] different criteria that it follows for that. I don't know
[5:02:32] if that answered your question or not.
[5:02:36] Matt Hymas: Okay. So as far as
[5:02:38] I understand it, the motion
[5:02:42] that is before us is to remove
[5:02:44] obscene and as referenced in
[5:02:46] section 76-5C-10.
[5:02:56] Member Boggess:
[5:03:02] To the motion it does not seem
[5:03:05] that section 76-five c-ten
[5:03:08] doesn't exist. That does not appear to exist. So I know
[5:03:12] exactly what we are striking?
[5:03:17] Matt Hymas:. It should make
[5:03:18] your voting easier. I don't
[5:03:19] know --
[5:03:33] >> 101?
[5:03:36] Yeah. It is. So thank you for
[5:03:39] that. So then with that, my
[5:03:44] question is, why would we want to take that out when we have
[5:03:48] an explicit definition?
[5:03:50] Matt Hymas: I now Member Earl talked about this already. Do
[5:03:55] you want to go ahead?
[5:03:56] Jennie Earl: Obscene animal abuse does not fall under
[5:04:01] subjective. It falls under objective and so it is down further. We are not taking
[5:04:05] that out. We are just saying
[5:04:06] that animal abuse could be considered under sensitive materials as far as the
[5:04:11] subjective portion.
[5:04:20] >> Okay. That's fine.
[5:04:22] >> If I could maybe clarify
[5:04:24] that a little bit, your objective are going to be things that are set out in
[5:04:29] statute that are actually offenses. Your subjective is
[5:04:32] going to be stuff that does
[5:04:33] not come in the statute. If you think of it as a catch all for things that are not
[5:04:42] defined as crimes but are things that people might find
[5:04:45] offensive then you have to look at it and determine
[5:04:47] whether or not it is offensive in that particular context.
[5:04:51] That is why you've got to move the obscene animal abuse
[5:04:53] permit because that is a
[5:04:55] specific statutory
[5:04:56] definition.
 Matt Hymas: Vice Chair Bollinger.
[5:05:03] >> If I may direct a question
[5:05:05] to Davina I'm sorry to put you
[5:05:07] on the spot. If I may know, the impact of this language on
[5:05:12] page six on draft for those pieces with the violence and
[5:05:15] self-harm. What kind of impact
[5:05:16] is that going to have on our
[5:05:19] process that you as a staff
[5:05:25] and expert have concerns or are you supportive of that?
[5:05:28] Matt Hymas: I'm sorry to do
[5:05:30] this to you, Amanda. That part is not relevant right now. I
[5:05:36] know it's in the section but
[5:05:37] since there is no motion, do you know what I mean? If we had a motion we could discuss
[5:05:43] it.
[5:05:49] Amanda Bollinger: I'm trying
[5:05:49] to amend the motion.
[5:05:51] Matt Hymas: I see. Let's take care of this then it will be
[5:05:55] on the general then we can discuss it. Are there any
[5:05:59] other questions to this? Are
[5:06:01] there any other questions on this motion? I'm not seeing
[5:06:05] any. I'm going to state it one
[5:06:06] more time. We can start voting here. The motion is that the
[5:06:11] board amend the 2026 policy
[5:06:14] draft for page six to strike
[5:06:16] obscene and as referenced in
[5:06:23] 76-5C-101. Let's go ahead and
[5:06:27] vote on this amendment.
[5:06:45] Okay. That passes 13 in favor one opposed one absent.
[5:06:50] Opposition coming from Member
[5:06:52] Lear. That brings us back to the
[5:06:56] entire thing.
[5:07:02] Okay. Let's do it.
[5:07:10] Jennie Earl: It is corresponding because it
[5:07:11] cleans up the provision we
[5:07:12] asked about. It is page 13, I
[5:07:18] believe. Number seven. Let me
[5:07:20] get to my email real quick. Okay. This is what was
[5:07:27] suggested to put in. So I'm going to read down through it.
[5:07:30] It is a little bit long. The
[5:07:31] review committee will evaluate
[5:07:37] -- I can't read the rest of my
[5:07:39] -- do you have it up there?
[5:07:49] Oh yeah. That's not it. I have
[5:07:52] a motion. It is cutting it
[5:07:54] off. Oh no. I think I'm okay
[5:07:57] here. Okay. So page 13. Seven. It should say the review committee will evaluate the
[5:08:04] material using the subjective
[5:08:06] factor balancing standard. Is
[5:08:09] everybody there? Okay. So the
[5:08:11] recommendation is to strike, in deciding whether the material constitutes prime so
[5:08:17] striking that so it would read
[5:08:18] subjective
[5:08:22] Sensitive material is. Then it would strike, Committee must
[5:08:28] consider whether the. Material
[5:08:30] is material that is harmful to
[5:08:32] minors under Utah Code
[5:08:38] 76-5C-1018A or includes fondling or other erotic
[5:08:44] touching of the human buttocks or female breast. Striking
[5:08:47] taken as a whole then adding,
[5:08:51] in deciding whether the material is harmful to minors
[5:08:53] the Committee must consider whether the material contains
[5:08:56] a depiction or representation
[5:08:58] of nudity, sexual conduct,
[5:09:04] sexual excitement, abuse,
[5:09:10] sexual conduct with an animal or animal crushing that taken
[5:09:15] as a whole appeals to the purity and interest of sex of
[5:09:18] minors. Two,
[5:09:22] is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole
[5:09:28] with respect to what is suitable for minors and three,
[5:09:30] does not have serious literary artistic political or
[5:09:34] scientific value for minors.
[5:09:37] The addition would be this for
[5:09:39] in deciding whether material is harmful to minors the
[5:09:42] committee may also consider whether other criteria are found to be harmful to minors
[5:09:46] such as violence trauma pervasive vulgarity, animal
[5:09:49] abuse or self-harm. The
[5:09:52] committee must consider whether the material taken as
[5:09:56] a whole appeals to prurient
[5:09:58] interest in sex, the material
[5:10:00] is patently offensive in the depiction or description of
[5:10:04] sexual conduct or excitement,
[5:10:08] Sadomasochist abuse, erection
[5:10:13] and or excretion. Three. Taken as a whole the material for
[5:10:18] performance does not have serious literary artistic
[5:10:20] political or scientific value
[5:10:22] and it would strike A, which
[5:10:25] is the last piece there. And I'm just telling you I worked
[5:10:34] with AAG Goff on that one to
[5:10:37] make sure it was articulated
[5:10:38] from the law and it was -- so.
[5:10:52] Matt Hymas: Maybe it is this
[5:10:53] table through here but
[5:10:57] you're halfway through and I'm like not tracking any of this.
[5:11:02] All I can think about is Stephen King doing another
[5:11:04] report saying Utah hates my
[5:11:05] books. This is the law section. What I'm wondering is
[5:11:11] if this is not a quick amendment. Does this need to
[5:11:14] go back to committee?
[5:11:16] Jennie Earl: This was the question. This answer is the
[5:11:20] answer I got through the question at the end of our
[5:11:22] committee meeting. We asked AAG
[5:11:26] Gough to go look at it and do an in depth review of it and
[5:11:30] this was his answer.
[5:11:33] Matt Hymas: So the section that you just read through
[5:11:35] here replaces seven, ultimately?
[5:11:42] Jennie Earl: Yes. If you would
[5:11:45] like it back into committee we
[5:11:47] are happy to take it.
[5:11:52] Matt Hymas: I just -- even if
[5:11:54] you look after seven, it's number 12. So something is
[5:12:00] happening here. That's why I'm like I just don't know. I'm
[5:12:03] not sure what to do or how
[5:12:05] much time to take. That's an
[5:12:08] easy numbering thing, right? But I just want to make sure that this was prepared to come
[5:12:14] out of committee and this is a
[5:12:16] big lift.
[5:12:17] Jennie Earl: You can send it back. My point was that at the
[5:12:22] end of the committee, we asked
[5:12:27] AAG Goff to work on this and this is what he sent back. I'm
[5:12:32] giving you what he sent back. If it doesn't align and we want to send it back we're
[5:12:36] good with that. If it's a
[5:12:38] numbering thing --
[5:12:41] Matt Hymas: It does make
[5:12:42] sense. I guess for me, this is
[5:12:46] a lot. I know it makes sense. This goes back to me. Like
[5:12:51] honestly if I voted for this
[5:12:52] it's because I trust our AAGs.
[5:12:57] It's not because I've had time to process this. Right? That's
[5:13:00] what I'm saying.
[5:13:03] Jennie Earl: What he is doing is articulating the provision
[5:13:06] of the law. This is not him writing this up. This is
[5:13:10] taking the lot and putting it
[5:13:11] in here so it is clearly spelled out.
[5:13:19] Matt Hymas: Yes. This is not Jenny's comments that she came
[5:13:22] up with. You had a question at committee and this is the
[5:13:25] response. Right?
[5:13:28] Jennie Earl: The question was around the other piece can
[5:13:31] other things be considered or is it only pornographic
[5:13:34] content? Could it be other
[5:13:36] things or does it have to be this narrowly focused? The answer is no it doesn't have
[5:13:40] to be but it has to be restricted to the criteria
[5:13:43] within the law. So this is the answer to that. This body can
[5:13:47] decide what they want to do.
[5:13:50] Matt Hymas: That's helpful for
[5:13:51] me. Thank you. Member Lear.
[5:13:56] Member Lear: Four years ago when we started this it made
[5:14:01] sense to have this model
[5:14:02] policy. But now -- Jennie, this is kind of for you. Maybe
[5:14:09] you don't care. I just said when we started this it made
[5:14:11] sense to have a model policy.
[5:14:14] But now LEAs have their model policies and now we are throwing monkey wrenches into
[5:14:21] their model policies and I didn't see anywhere in the law
[5:14:24] where in our board rule where
[5:14:26] a model policy was required.
[5:14:31] Could somebody point me to it? Because I could not and I
[5:14:36] didn't do an exhaustive --
[5:14:42] Matt Hymas: It is R 277628 and
[5:14:45] it says each l e shall have a policy and then we provide the
[5:14:49] model policy.
[5:14:51] >> Does it say literally that
[5:14:53] the board? Does it say literally the board shall
[5:14:56] provide a model policy? I did not see that. Maybe I
[5:15:01] overlooked it.
 >> Yeah. I don't know the
[5:15:03] exact.
[5:15:06] I'm just wondering if we just
[5:15:09] leave well enough alone.
[5:15:14] (Indistinct) repeal our policy
[5:15:16] because they have a policy and
[5:15:18] stop trying to update
[5:15:22] and then require that LEAs can update their policy as
[5:15:29] required because we provided the model policy once and now
[5:15:33] in reference to our chairs
[5:15:34] comment about local control,
[5:15:38] which I also try to live by, they can move on with their
[5:15:42] own changes and updates. But unless you tell me that we
[5:15:45] have to have a model policy
[5:15:47] per the law or even our board
[5:15:49] rule and I did not see that in
[5:15:51] 628.
[5:15:58] Matt Hymas: I do believe it
[5:16:00] says the superintendency may provide a guidance document
[5:16:03] for use by Nlea in developing
[5:16:06] the LEA policy and
[5:16:08] accompanying procedures. In
[5:16:10] full disclosure, I'm using AI.
[5:16:16] Not obscenity AI.
[5:16:27] Member Lear: Okay. I just posed that question to say if
[5:16:31] this is not necessary now, if
[5:16:34] it has outlived its usefulness, why are we still wrestling with it when it is
[5:16:38] not required in law? It's not even required in board rule.
[5:16:41] We have guidance. We have
[5:16:43] provided it in the past.
[5:16:45] That's not so my rhetorical. If anybody has an answer for
[5:16:50] that. I am troubled because I think we are doing more harm
[5:16:53] than good to our LEAs.
[5:17:00] Matt Hymas: I think we are off
[5:17:02] track again. We're talking to the general policy right here
[5:17:05] and rule, whereas we need to
[5:17:08] address this motion.
[5:17:11] Member Lear: Yes. Although it
[5:17:14] could be in lieu of this. I just double s you are right. I
[5:17:17] just think that addressing this as a whole maybe makes
[5:17:21] more sense than nitpicking it.
[5:17:24] But if we want to nitpick then
[5:17:30] --
 Matt Hymas: Let's get back to
[5:17:31] this motion before us and I really don't want to read it
[5:17:33] yet but it is before us and so I'm going to move to Member
[5:17:39] Kerry.
[5:17:42] Member Kerry: Thank you Chair. I speak in favor of the
[5:17:46] motion. I think if we give guidance and that guidance is
[5:17:49] outdated or erroneous, this body has an obligation to
[5:17:53] update it. We just did that in June with religious liberty.
[5:17:56] The guidance we have been giving schools was based on
[5:17:59] case law from the 1970s and the Supreme Court changed that
[5:18:02] and this body took action to
[5:18:05] reflect those changes. The
[5:18:07] language that is here is textbook constitutional law
[5:18:12] when it comes to obscenity and
[5:18:14] pornography. This is the constitutional test to
[5:18:18] determine what makes something
[5:18:19] obscene.
[5:18:22] So this is not a creative interpretation and you can see
[5:18:28] that an attorney wrote this. I
[5:18:31] would imagine that it was AAG
[5:18:35] Goff or someone from his team.
[5:18:37] This is the standard and if
[5:18:39] guidance given to LEAs previously conflicts with this I think we have an obligation
[5:18:47] to say not that we got it
[5:18:49] wrong but that it has changed.
[5:18:50] It's the standard. If we articulated it poorly
[5:18:56] before let's get it right instead of having schools
[5:19:00] continue down a path that puts
[5:19:03] them in
[5:19:07] jeopardy among the ranks. If
[5:19:12] we could get it right that's
[5:19:14] fantastic.
[5:19:19] I think if we have the opportunity to correct it now
[5:19:21] that is our role. Thank you Chair.
[5:19:28] Amanda Bollinger: I'm going to
[5:19:31] --
[5:19:35] Matt Hymas: I'm going to read this now.
[5:19:38] I'm not going to take any other comments unless they
[5:19:40] come forward now. I'll write.
[5:19:42] The motion to amend is that the board amends the 2026
[5:19:46] model Policy draft
[5:19:48] page 13 number seven to strike in deciding whether the
[5:19:53] material constitute the Committee must consider
[5:19:57] whether the, and taken as a whole, and amending the line
[5:20:00] to read, subjective sensitive
[5:20:03] material is material that is harmful to minors under Utah
[5:20:05] code 76-5C-101.
[5:20:14] Pornographic under Utah code
[5:20:18] 765 C 101 or include
[5:20:23] erotic touching of the human buttocks or female breast and that the board amend the 2026
[5:20:28] Model Policy Draft page 13
[5:20:31] page seven to read as follows. In deciding whether the
[5:20:34] material is harmful to minors, the committee must consider
[5:20:37] whether the material contains the description or
[5:20:40] representation of nudity,
[5:20:42] sexual conduct,
[5:20:48] sadomasochistic abuse, sexual
[5:20:53] conduct with an animal or
[5:20:55] animal crushing, that taken as
[5:20:59] a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex of
[5:21:03] minors, II is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult
[5:21:13] community as a whole with respect to what is suitable
[5:21:15] material for minors and, III
[5:21:20] does not have serious literary, artistic, political
[5:21:24] or scientific value from minors. Be. In deciding
[5:21:28] whether material is harmful to minors the committee may also
[5:21:31] consider whether the other criteria found to be harmful
[5:21:34] to minors such as violence, pervasive vulgarity, animal
[5:21:38] abuse or self-harm. C. In
[5:21:42] deciding whether the material
[5:21:43] is pornographic the
[5:21:45] containment consider whether the material one, when applying contemporary
[5:21:51] community standards, the material taken as a whole
[5:21:54] appeals to prurient interest
[5:21:55] in sex. Two. The material is patently offensive in the
[5:22:00] description or depiction of
[5:22:01] nudity, sexual conduct, sexual
[5:22:05] excitement, sadomasochistic
[5:22:09] abuse or excretion and three. Taken as a whole, the material
[5:22:17] or performance does not have
[5:22:18] serious literary, artistic,
[5:22:21] political or scientific value.
[5:22:24] Okay. And then A, may consider the other criteria found to be
[5:22:39] harmful to minors such as violence, pervasive nudity,
[5:22:42] animal abuse as referenced in
[5:22:46] 76-5C-101. Let's go ahead and
[5:22:51] vote. I know we are doing this while voting. Have you guys
[5:22:54] seen that video of the kid who struggles to read a new word and nobody knows the context
[5:22:57] but the question is, is the student a poor reader because
[5:23:01] he can't read this word? You might ask is he a poor reader
[5:23:04] because he can't say like I
[5:23:07] would argue that yes I am a poor reader but that is a new
[5:23:10] word. There is a couple. What
[5:23:12] is the other one? Prurient.
[5:23:18] Federally what? Defined a term
[5:23:22] that Matt needs to look up?
[5:23:23] Yeah. Okay. That motion passes
[5:23:28] unanimously.
[5:23:31] We are over to Vice Chair
[5:23:35] Bollinger.
 Amanda Bollinger: Thank you,
[5:23:39] Chair. If I can just direct a
[5:23:41] question to Davina and
[5:23:45] I recognize this model policy
[5:23:48] is not necessarily mandated for districts to use. They have to make a policy but they
[5:23:52] can make their own policy. When we were talking about
[5:23:54] those couple of words, do you see that as a concern for
[5:23:58] local LEAs in their processes?
[5:24:09] >> Davina. Library specialist teaching and learning. I think it would be important that
[5:24:14] committees are well trained on
[5:24:16] the definition of sensitive materials according to statute
[5:24:21] and all of the other things we
[5:24:22] might evaluate a statute for. We definitely evaluate for age
[5:24:27] appropriateness, developmental appropriate etc.. My one
[5:24:30] concern is that a committee may not have all of the
[5:24:33] training they need to be looking at the law specifically when they are
[5:24:37] talking about pornographic.
[5:24:40] The definition is pornographic and indecent material
[5:24:43] according to the IIII material
[5:24:48] that we just had Chair Hymas
[5:24:53] read for us. The age appropriate that might -- self
[5:24:58] harm in middle school we might not want to have a title that has self harm and talks about
[5:25:02] self harm in middle school versus high school and so forth. So it would be very
[5:25:06] important that committees are well trained on how to
[5:25:08] differentiate between statute and anything else.
[5:25:13] Amanda Bollinger: Thank you.
[5:25:14] Just a follow up. There is clear guidance that is used to
[5:25:18] train those committees. Do we have plans or support of some
[5:25:21] kind of document that then LEA
[5:25:31] s can use as their training
[5:25:31] their committees from USBE to support that?
[5:25:38] >> Actually, certain health courses are exempt from sensitive materials. I can't
[5:25:44] remember the name of the statute right now or the
[5:25:47] number of the statute but and I have worked closely with
[5:25:50] Jody Parker, our health
[5:25:53] specialist here. She has a course where sensitive
[5:25:56] materials are included in that course training teachers on
[5:26:00] knowing the difference between what should be allowed and not
[5:26:02] allowed according to statute.
 Amanda Bollinger: My question
[5:26:07] was more for the committees reviewing the sensitive
[5:26:09] materials. They have a really
[5:26:11] good process for the sex Ed materials. Do we have plans to
[5:26:15] support LEAs with training materials or documents so they can clearly train their committees?
[5:26:23] >> Yes. We have a flow that walks through all the steps
[5:26:26] and defines -- it lays out
[5:26:28] exactly like this is what the
[5:26:30] definition of objective and
[5:26:33] subjective are and the differences there. Most
[5:26:38] districts have updated their policies as of 2024 when the statute originally changed and
[5:26:43] most of them -- many of our
[5:26:45] districts, not necessarily our
[5:26:49] charter schools, have an age appropriate section because
[5:26:52] they recognize that there is a
[5:26:54] need for that there. However,
[5:26:56] when you get down to the
[5:26:59] committee moment in time, they are not always going through all of the pieces that are in
[5:27:05] their policies. If the challenge comes in and says I'm challenging this for
[5:27:09] sensitive materials, our committee can kind of veer
[5:27:14] away from it and start reading
[5:27:16] the book in its entirety. A lot of discussion happens and
[5:27:23] so even with training it's hard to navigate that language
[5:27:26] and make sure that committees are staying focused on the issue at hand.
[5:27:30] Matt Hymas: Member Earl.
 Jennie Earl: Before you cut me
[5:27:37] off, Davina did a fabulous job at rural schools talking about
[5:27:41] the districts. She does a
[5:27:47] great job. She is out there presenting this so it is clear on what they can use and the
[5:27:53] resources available.
[5:27:58] Matt Hymas: All right. So the motion before us is that the
[5:28:01] board repeal the 2022 model
[5:28:03] policy and adopt the 2026
[5:28:06] Model Policy Draft 4 as amended on second and final
[5:28:14] reading. Let's vote.
[5:28:23] [Members voting]
[5:28:50] That passes unanimously. Back
[5:28:54] to you, Chair Earl.
[5:29:02] Jennie Earl: Hopefully you
[5:29:03] will listen to our committee.
[5:29:05] If not I would listen to this.
[5:29:06] This is the Utah Special Education Advisory Panel who
[5:29:11] advises us. They had a number of recommendations. Those are
[5:29:15] listed in our document here.
[5:29:18] The motion is that the board
[5:29:20] accept the UC recommendations
[5:29:23] in the memo titled 2026 Utah
[5:29:27] Special Education Advisory
[5:29:28] Panel memo Teacher Recruitment and Retention for
[5:29:34] consideration and that the new USBE
[5:29:40] leadership panel
[5:29:46] are reflective of the UCEEP recommendations.
[5:29:55] Matt Hymas: The motion is that
[5:29:57] the board accept the UC recommendations in the memo entitled 2026 Utah Special
[5:30:02] Education Advisory Panel memo teacher recruitment and
[5:30:07] retention for consideration
[5:30:10] and that the new USBE
[5:30:15] leadership standards are
[5:30:18] reflective of the UCEEP
[5:30:26] recommendations. Seeing no
[5:30:29] lights, let's vote. The motion
[5:30:33] passes 13 in favor one abstention one no vote. The
[5:30:37] abstention from Member Green. The no vote from Member
[5:30:40] Boggess. Back to you, Chair Earl.
[5:30:46] Jennie Earl: We are done. Thank you. That was lots of
[5:30:50] work.
[5:30:51] Matt Hymas: Okay. We are going
[5:30:54] to move to agenda item five. We will turn it over to Chair
[5:31:02] Kerry.
[5:31:06] Member Kerry:
[5:31:09] We will start with the June
[5:31:12] 5th, 2026 meeting item 5.2
[5:31:15] alpine School District waiver request and the motion is that
[5:31:18] the board approve alpine School District's request for
[5:31:21] a waiver are 227484 with all
[5:31:25] schools as needed in the Alpine District. This motion
[5:31:28] passed out of committee unanimously with Vice Chair
[5:31:31] Bollinger recusing herself.
[5:31:35] Matt Hymas: Okay. Motion that
[5:31:39] came from committee is that the board approve alpine
[5:31:41] School district's waiver for
[5:31:42] request for a waiver from our 227484 for all schools
[5:31:47] necessary and. Let's vote.
[5:32:01] [Members voting]
[5:32:12] Okay. That passes 12 in favor,
[5:32:16] one absent and two abstentions. Abstentions from
[5:32:20] members Kelley and Member
[5:32:22] Bollinger.
 >> The next item is 5.3 amendment to data sharing
[5:32:27] agreement with Department of Health and Human Services and
[5:32:30] Juvenile Court USBE 220035 MOU
[5:32:36] amendment one. The motion from the board is that the board
[5:32:39] approved the amendment to the Data Sharing agreement with
[5:32:42] the Department of Health and Human Services and Juvenile
[5:32:46] Courts
[5:32:46] USBE 220035 MOU amendment one. 
 >> Thank you. The motion is
[5:32:56] that the board
[5:32:59] approve the amendment to the data sharing agreement with the Department of Health and
[5:33:03] Human Services and Juvenile
[5:33:05] Courts. This is USBE
[5:33:06] 220035 MOU amendment one.
[5:33:12] Lights, let's vote.
[5:33:18] [Members voting]
[5:33:25] So that motion passes 11 in
[5:33:29] favor two opposed, and two absent. Those opposed being Member Green and Member
[5:33:36] Boggess.
[5:33:37] Joseph Kerry: The next item is item five point four board
[5:33:41] policy
[5:33:47] 3006 USBE Data Governance Plan Amendment. The motion for this
[5:33:52] body is that the board approve
[5:33:53] policy 3006 USBE Data Governance Plan Ref two and I
[5:33:57] do have a motion on that.
[5:33:59] Matt Hymas: The motion that came from committee is that
[5:34:03] the board approve board policy
[5:34:09] 3006 USBE Data Governance Plan
[5:34:14] Draft two.
 Joseph Kerry: Thank you. I
[5:34:18] sent it to staff to pre draft it and that motion would just
[5:34:21] be that we amend our policy so
[5:34:23] that student or educated data
[5:34:28] -- so this wouldn't just apply to students but student or
[5:34:31] educator data maintained by the Utah State Board of
[5:34:34] Education, local education
[5:34:37] agency or public school shall not be stored on information systems physically located
[5:34:41] outside the United States or its territories unless
[5:34:44] otherwise required by federal
[5:34:46] or state law. And if I have a second, I would like to speak
[5:34:50] to it.
[5:34:58] I think that this language just brings us into compliance
[5:35:01] with current state law and
[5:35:03] policy. Shortly before
[5:35:07] law and licensing presented, I was able to speak with Jared
[5:35:16] from I t. He provided me with the contracts the state requires to be signed when it
[5:35:21] comes to state data which would include our student
[5:35:23] data. Each one of these agreements
[5:35:28] that an entity has to sign
[5:35:29] with the state, it says in all capitals, services shall be
[5:35:33] performed within the United States. All of the services
[5:35:37] related to data shall be performed within the boundaries and jurisdiction of
[5:35:40] the United States. The next one says something very
[5:35:43] similar. This one applies to contractors. Contractors shall
[5:35:48] store and maintain all data
[5:35:50] located only within the United
[5:35:52] States, and I just found out while talking to board member
[5:35:57] Earl that when we leave the
[5:36:00] country with our laptops, we
[5:36:04] can't use them unless we preclear our travel outside
[5:36:07] the United States with the it
[5:36:10] department. And the reason for that is, they don't want our
[5:36:15] data or the state data, I
[5:36:18] should say, floating around
[5:36:20] unaccessible in jurisdictions where U.S. Law does not
[5:36:24] control. So again, this
[5:36:28] amendment just brings us and our policy into compliance
[5:36:30] with state law and state policy as it currently exists.
[5:36:35] Thank you.
[5:36:38] Matt Hymas: Vice Chair Bollinger.
[5:36:40] Amanda Bollinger: Thank you
[5:36:42] chair. I appreciate
[5:36:47] Member Kerry bringing this to the table my concern with this
[5:36:50] motion is -- this is something that we have a data privacy
[5:36:54] team that we as a board have
[5:36:55] to advise us. These are experts in this field. I'm not an expert in data storage. And
[5:37:01] as I was reading the summary
[5:37:02] of that committee that is required in our policy for that committee to give us
[5:37:07] advice so we can make the best decision possible. And there
[5:37:11] is an email that Director Chalice sent to us on
[5:37:14] Wednesday at 10:08 a m and they said storage geography
[5:37:26] may be less relevant than legal control under statutes like the Cloud Act. The matter
[5:37:31] of legal control may warrant further research including
[5:37:34] potentially consulting international privacy law
[5:37:36] experts and reviewing experiences in other states. So although I'm not
[5:37:40] necessarily opposed to this
[5:37:42] -- I now it is in some data privacy agreements. I've even
[5:37:53] seen it in LEAs. Making this policy right now with all the
[5:37:57] information and guidance from the experts that we've hired are part of our staff is very
[5:38:00] concerning to me. I feel like if I voted for this it would
[5:38:03] be irresponsible of me because I don't have the information
[5:38:06] from the experts. In fact, at the end of the report it says
[5:38:10] the advisory board recommends the board take time to study
[5:38:13] policy alternatives before adopting amendments. So at
[5:38:16] this point, I could not support this. Thank you.
[5:38:22] Matt Hymas: Member Earl.
[5:38:25] Jennie Earl: Yeah. Unfortunately I was a little late to that meeting. That is
[5:38:30] my normal assignment but I had a commitment earlier so I only caught the end of it. I just
[5:38:34] think it might be good for this body to know that there
[5:38:37] are a number of legislators that are working in this area
[5:38:39] currently. Cindy can correct
[5:38:43] me if I'm wrong because she
[5:38:44] was there, too. There are some
[5:38:52] questions out there such as what it should look like? How
[5:38:56] do we put it into code? I just want to throw that out there.
[5:38:59] I don't want my student or educator data stored and used
[5:39:03] in some other place. So I
[5:39:05] don't know. I'm just letting people know that there is legislation being discussed by
[5:39:09] a number of people currently
[5:39:11] in this particular realm. So
[5:39:15] just information.
[5:39:18] Matt Hymas: Member Davis.
[5:39:25] Member Davis:
[5:39:28] Yeah. I was in that data
[5:39:32] Protection Advisory board meeting yesterday and it was
[5:39:35] interesting to listen to all of the different experts and their thoughts and ideas and
[5:39:39] concerns. Representative Dufay said the legislature is
[5:39:43] looking at this. I think we have an opportunity to do
[5:39:45] something that is thoughtful in this space so that the legislature doesn't have to do
[5:39:49] something quickly during a session that might not be as
[5:39:52] thoughtful as what we do. They did have time to study I guess
[5:39:56] some other states who have
[5:39:58] done something like this and had to walk it back a little
[5:40:01] bit, only in the sense of
[5:40:05] adjusting what it looked like. Someone had just a Carte Blanche U.S. Storage and then
[5:40:09] they had to go back during the next year because they had a
[5:40:12] bunch of unintended consequences and go back and
[5:40:15] actually list some other favorable or friendly
[5:40:19] countries with the United States as opposed to like a
[5:40:24] blacklist. More like a whitelist. This was a two hour
[5:40:28] meeting but there was lots of conversation and I think it
[5:40:31] would be worthy to just wait one more month to have that
[5:40:34] conversation again in the law
[5:40:37] licensing committee so those
[5:40:40] folks could participate. I think one is at a wedding or
[5:40:45] something today but it was a pretty thoughtful
[5:40:47] conversation.
[5:40:57] Matt Hymas: Okay. So we have an amendment before us here.
[5:41:01] Go ahead.
[5:41:06] >> Vice chair has made a motion to postpone. I move to
[5:41:08] postpone this back to law and licensing committee for next
[5:41:11] month. I think it is on that agenda also tomorrow and even
[5:41:15] the next month, I think. Isn't
[5:41:18] it?
 Matt Hymas: Yeah. It's a
[5:41:22] little bit different tomorrow. I think a similar discussion
[5:41:25] could take place, but your
[5:41:26] motion is to postpone. So your motion is to send policy 3006
[5:41:31] back to committee to be
[5:41:33] discussed in September. Is
[5:41:35] that what I'm hearing?
[5:41:41] >> That's what I'm thinking yes.
[5:41:43] Matt Hymas: And we have a second. So again the motion is
[5:41:47] to send back to committee. Specifically, September's
[5:41:51] committee. The motion has been made and seconded. Do you want
[5:41:56] to speak to that additionally?
[5:41:58] Okay.
[5:42:00] Joe, your light is confusing
[5:42:03] me. Okay. Let me get your
[5:42:08] light so you can oppose it yourself so I don't have to
[5:42:10] oppose it for you.
 Joseph Kerry: I would oppose
[5:42:15] this motion. If you want to send it back to committee
[5:42:17] let's send it back tomorrow. I'm making the same motion tomorrow on the rule that is
[5:42:22] before us. But I do think the board has an opportunity to
[5:42:25] take a vote today on where we stand in protecting student
[5:42:28] and educator privacy. Again,
[5:42:33] we are just bringing our rules into compliance with state law
[5:42:38] and I feel very uncomfortable
[5:42:40] knowing that there could be
[5:42:43] student data, educator data
[5:42:46] floating around outside the jurisdiction of the United
[5:42:52] States. We have an opportunity as a board to take action
[5:42:54] today. I'm grateful the
[5:42:56] legislature is looking at it. They're also looking at attendance. They're also
[5:43:01] looking at UPPAC. They're also
[5:43:05] looking at special Ed. So should we not take action on
[5:43:08] any of those things because there is a legislator or two poking around thinking they
[5:43:11] have the solution to this? No.
[5:43:14] I think our charge is, we move forward with the information
[5:43:17] that we have before us. So I would oppose the motion. Let's
[5:43:21] take the up or down vote and proceed from there. Thank you
[5:43:24] Chair.
[5:43:29] Matt Hymas: Vice Chair Bollinger then Member Green
[5:43:31] then Member Davis.
[5:43:33] >> Thank you. If this were to be -- because
[5:43:38] this is something that was brought to us from staff originally to be updated. Is
[5:43:42] there a time crunch on this
[5:43:44] specific policy?
[5:43:52] Matt Hymas: Elise, is that to you?
[5:43:57] >> It can be. I just talked to Stefan yes. We can delay this.
[5:44:01] The original changes to policy
[5:44:03] 3006 was so that the
[5:44:09] data governance plan does not have an important deadline so that can be delayed a few
[5:44:15] months if that is the board's choice.
[5:44:19] >> And if we don't follow up
[5:44:26] -- pass this are we out of compliance with the state law
[5:44:28] or are we in compliance as a board with the state law
[5:44:31] currently?
 >> There is no state law we
[5:44:35] would be out of compliance.
 >> Thank you. With that I do
[5:44:38] support this motion. Back to what I was speaking to before,
[5:44:42] our committee and advisory committee for this is telling
[5:44:45] us we do need to gather more information. I think postponing it to September would provide us the time we
[5:44:50] need to make sure that we have
[5:44:51] the right decision on this. I agree with Member Earl that we
[5:44:56] want to make sure our data is protected but I also want to
[5:44:59] make sure we are doing it in a way that is responsible. So
[5:45:02] thank you.
[5:45:04] Matt Hymas: Member Green?
[5:45:11] Emily Green: I think I would support this going back as
[5:45:13] well only because the way it's written right now I don't think I would vote for this
[5:45:16] amendment. I'm still looking at how -- and I brought this
[5:45:20] up in a previous meeting. We
[5:45:22] have contracts. Like we have different ways that things are actually stored so I would
[5:45:26] want to know that the
[5:45:29] amendment includes covering
[5:45:31] the backups, where that goes when that happens. Applies to
[5:45:37] the cloud environments. It is easy to enforce through the
[5:45:40] contracts and third parties permit because it might be
[5:45:42] here but if we use them then they might be in a different
[5:45:47] country that doesn't fall in
[5:45:49] line. I don't know what that looks like but I would like to
[5:45:52] see that built into the amendment so that would say
[5:45:57] something like, contracts with third party vendors shall
[5:46:00] require compliance with this requirement. Because that is
[5:46:04] naturally built into this discussion. So anyway. Thank
[5:46:08] you. You might consider that.
 Matt Hymas: Member Davis.
[5:46:18] Member Davis: I just want to make it clear that what I said in the meeting yesterday was a
[5:46:25] similar thing. That I do think we should work on this so that the legislature doesn't have
[5:46:29] to and we should work on a
[5:46:31] thoughtful policy
[5:46:36] . Answering some of the questions that these experts
[5:46:38] had yesterday I think would help to flesh it out and make it so that it would stand
[5:46:42] strong from the beginning. Hearing that some of these
[5:46:45] other states who have started in this spot have had to make
[5:46:48] some adjustments. I just think
[5:46:51] bringing that data team on and working with the law and
[5:46:55] licensing team might help to flesh it out a little bit more
[5:46:59] from the beginning so that we don't end up with either
[5:47:02] legislature thinking that they need to do something or that
[5:47:05] we need to change it
[5:47:07] afterwards.
[5:47:14] Joseph Kerry: I do have one question and maybe this is
[5:47:16] directed towards the staff that is here. The Google
[5:47:19] Gemini agreement that was
[5:47:20] recently entered into by the
[5:47:22] Superintendent and the agency, is there someone here that
[5:47:28] could address some of those terms and conditions as it
[5:47:32] relates to the housing of data?
[5:47:36] Matt Hymas: Help me see how
[5:47:38] it's germane to this.
 Joseph Kerry: Because it may
[5:47:43] change how I vote you know. Depending on the integration
[5:47:46] between the housing of the data and what advantages or
[5:47:49] disadvantages are to this
[5:47:51] agreement entered into with the AI Google Gemini
[5:47:55] agreement. So it would be informative to me. So if there
[5:47:59] is someone from staff here, I
[5:48:02] would appreciate being able to pose a question or two on
[5:48:06] that.
 Matt Hymas:
[5:48:09] Nicole, you can tackle that? Push the little speaker button
[5:48:13] on their. There you go.
[5:48:21] >>
[5:48:22] Sorry. It's my first time. I
[5:48:26] am student data privacy specialist Nicole Sanchez. Would you please repeat the
[5:48:30] question?
[5:48:33] Joseph Kerry: Chair, if I may, I just have 1 or 2 questions on the data provisions of the
[5:48:39] ag AI Google Gemini Agreement and through the chair, that
[5:48:43] would be the current agreement
[5:48:45] of the template that we have with Google. Does it require
[5:48:49] student data -- does it require Google to have student
[5:48:53] data in the United States or
[5:48:55] its territories subject to
[5:48:56] U.S. Law? Thank you, Chair.
 >> Thank you for the question.
[5:49:03] The agreement that was made
[5:49:04] with Google, which includes
[5:49:07] Gemini, is an agreement
[5:49:10] between Google and LEAs. The agreement does include a section for a vendor is
[5:49:17] required to list countries
[5:49:19] that data may be stored in if they are countries other than
[5:49:23] the United States. The agreement with Google does state that it may be stored in
[5:49:27] other locations and the reason
[5:49:29] for that is because Google's
[5:49:31] licensing allows for
[5:49:35] customers to determine where their data will be stored
[5:49:39] depending on which tier of
[5:49:41] pricing they choose. So some LEAs may have the right to choose where their data will
[5:49:47] be stored and others may not,
[5:49:51] depending on which level they are paying for. Does that
[5:49:53] answer the question?
[5:49:56] Joseph Kerry: It does. It is I understanding that the free version of the AI Google
[5:50:03] Gemini which is available under the agreement does not
[5:50:07] permit LEAs to require their data be housed in a specific area because they are
[5:50:11] operating on the free agreement. Is that your
[5:50:14] understanding of the agreement?
 >> Yes. That is my understanding of the
[5:50:18] agreement.
 Joseph Kerry: Just one more
[5:50:22] question if I may. Does the AI Google Gemini agreement
[5:50:25] entered into by the Superintendent and the agency
[5:50:28] restrict an EA from housing their data in any specific
[5:50:32] country?
[5:50:36] >> The agreement is not
[5:50:38] between USBE and Google. It is
[5:50:41] between Google and LEAs. That agreement does not restrict
[5:50:52] anything as far as where data is stored. It just requires that the provider identify
[5:50:57] where the data may be stored if it is outside of the United
[5:50:59] States.
 Joseph Kerry: Thank you,
[5:51:03] Chair. Superintendent?
[5:51:06] >> I did not enter into a state agreement with Google.
[5:51:10] There is no state agreement
[5:51:11] between USBE and Google. Thank
[5:51:16] you.
[5:51:22] Matt Hymas: Okay. Member Kerry?
[5:51:26] Joseph Kerry: It is my understanding that the state
[5:51:29] used USBE employees paid for
[5:51:32] by taxpayer dollars, used USBE
[5:51:35] staff also paid -- used USBE resources to help facilitate
[5:51:41] this agreement and although there may not be an agreement signed between the
[5:51:44] Superintendent a and AI Google
[5:51:49] Gemini, without the help of the Superintendent and the
[5:51:52] resources of this body that agreement, it is my
[5:51:54] understanding, would not exist today. We made that agreement
[5:51:58] possible. When I say we I mean the Superintendent and the
[5:52:02] agency. So yes there is no signed agreement between the
[5:52:05] Superintendent and the AI
[5:52:07] Google Gemini, but certainly our resources,
[5:52:12] our staff, our time was used
[5:52:14] in facilitating that. Thank
[5:52:16] you, Chair.
[5:52:23] Matt Hymas: Okay. Let's get back on track. The motion
[5:52:26] before us is that the board postpone item 5.4 and send it
[5:52:30] back to committee to come before the September Committee
[5:52:33] meeting. That is the motion.
[5:52:35] Let's vote.
[5:52:48] [Members voting] That motion
[5:52:54] passes 12 in favor, three opposed, those opposed being
[5:52:57] Member Boggess, Member Kelley,
[5:52:59] and Member Kerry. Over to you, Chair Kerry.
[5:53:08] Joseph Kerry: I have no further amendments to this
[5:53:12] matter, so I think we are
[5:53:15] ready for a vote if there are no
[5:53:18] other matters on the
[5:53:21] underlying motion. Thank you.
 Matt Hymas: Yeah, you are
[5:53:26] right. I think if I understood
[5:53:28] Member Davis' motion
[5:53:33] correctly, there is no more
[5:53:35] underlying motion. The entire 5.4 agenda is going there. So
[5:53:41] I will go back to you if there
[5:53:42] is anything on this additional meeting. Otherwise we will go
[5:53:45] to agenda item seven. But I
[5:53:50] will leave that to you if you have anything else to say on
[5:53:54] agenda item five.
[5:53:57] Joseph Kerry: No. That closes
[5:54:00] out the June 6th, 2026 Committee agenda matters.
[5:54:03] Moving to the July 14th, 2026
[5:54:06] agenda, the first item is
[5:54:10] R27-322, local education agency codes of conduct and
[5:54:18] the motion is that the board approve
[5:54:30] R27-322
[5:54:30] local education agency codes
[5:54:37] of conduct draft five on second and final reading.
[5:54:41] Matt Hymas: I wondered if I would ever read this. How long
[5:54:46] has this been in committee? You know? It's been a long
[5:54:49] time.
 Joseph Kerry: It did pass
[5:54:53] committee unanimously with Member Longacre absent. Thank you.
[5:54:57] Matt Hymas: Probably a good
[5:55:00] thing. Okay. The motion before the board is that the board
[5:55:03] approve R27-322, local education agency codes of
[5:55:10] conduct draft five on second and final reading and yes.
[5:55:14] Leann just did whisper, I have
[5:55:18] a motion. Vice Chair Wood.
[5:55:28] Member Wood:
[5:55:41] As I'm reading over this I
[5:55:43] noticed on line 34 down to 59 that it defines sexual conduct
[5:55:47] means. And then in 59 it says
[5:55:50] any sexual conduct or communication between a staff member and a student. We
[5:55:54] generally don't use the word in the definition. Working
[5:55:57] with staff I would like to
[5:55:58] move that lines 35 and 54 be amended to read sexual conduct means any interaction between
[5:56:05] a staff member and student that is sexual in nature
[5:56:07] including sexual abused as defined, leaving those the
[5:56:11] same.
[5:56:13] Matt Hymas: Can we have that -- sorry. We are using
[5:56:17] different lines. We are on
[5:56:19] line 59. You said 30 something.
 >> There's a big space in
[5:56:25] between.
[5:56:40] Matt Hymas: Sexual conduct means and then you jump down
[5:56:42] to any interaction between a staff member and student that is sexual in nature including
[5:56:46] sexual abuse. That is your motion right here? Sexual
[5:56:50] abuse as defined in section
[5:56:52] 76- 5404.1. B, sexual battery
[5:56:57] as defined in section 76--702.1 and c. Sexually
[5:57:03] explicit or lewd communications, images or
[5:57:06] photographs. That is the motion. Is there a second? Go
[5:57:10] ahead, Member Wood.
[5:57:18] Member Wood:
[5:57:18] Sorry. I spoke to it again. Just that not using sexual conduct in both the definition
[5:57:25] and the word. That's my
[5:57:26] motion.
 Matt Hymas: Not seeing any
[5:57:31] additional lights, let's go
[5:57:32] ahead and put it to a vote.
[5:57:40] [Members voting]
[5:57:54] That passes unanimously. Okay. So the motion is that the
[5:58:02] board approve R 277322 local education agency
[5:58:08] codes of Conduct draft five as amended on second and final
[5:58:12] reading. Let's vote.
[5:58:26] [Members voting]
[5:58:41] That passes 13 in favor, one absent, one abstention, the
[5:58:46] abstention coming from Member
[5:58:48] Boggess. Back to you, Chair
[5:58:51] Kerry.
[5:58:58] Joseph Kerry:
[5:58:58] The next item is 7.3. That is
[5:59:09] R277-301,
[5:59:13] educator licensing draft two. This passed out of committee
[5:59:17] unanimously.
[5:59:20] Matt Hymas: The motion before the board is that the board
[5:59:24] continue and approve R277-301.
[5:59:34] >> Thank you. I have a question for Director Hite if
[5:59:35] she's available. She knew this
[5:59:39] was coming. I forewarned her.
[5:59:41] Did I get it right, director Hite? O. Executive coordinator
[5:59:46] Hite. There you go. I tried.
[5:59:48] So as we look at lines 52, 53,
[5:59:52] 54, five five, we are moving these two double, as I
[5:59:59] understand it. Can USBE track
[6:00:03] the ethical violations of these individuals as this is
[6:00:06] written?
[6:00:11] >> Chair, Malia Hite,
[6:00:13] executive coordinator of Educator Licensing. I'm happy
[6:00:16] to assist. So with the law
[6:00:18] that took place HB 347 this
[6:00:22] last session they moved all SLP speech and language
[6:00:26] pathologists and audiologists
[6:00:27] licensing to Doppel. We
[6:00:33] currently have some SLPs and audiologists and because the license is a property, they
[6:00:38] will hold that license until it expires. At that point,
[6:00:41] they will have to go to
[6:00:46] Doppel. Anyone who has a USBE
[6:00:51] educator license falls under the supervision of the board
[6:00:54] and must comply with educator
[6:00:55] Ethics and the UTAC process.
[6:01:04] Anybody who has only a DOPL
[6:01:11] license is not subject to those standards.
 >> That's a problem. That's a
[6:01:16] very big problem actually. We have people inside our schools
[6:01:20] that are not subject to our process or our accountability
[6:01:22] or even our rules. Just like the catalyst center. It's a
[6:01:27] great comment. And so I understand this comes from
[6:01:30] code, but I have huge issues
[6:01:32] with this. In fact, the only
[6:01:37] board rule they would really
[6:01:38] be subject to is probably 3 to
[6:01:46] -- 322. Am I correct in that
[6:01:50] assertion? Please answer so I don't just say executive
[6:01:54] coordinator shook her head because they don't know which direction your circuit.
[6:01:58] >> Yes. That is my
[6:01:59] understanding. As employees of an LEA they would be subject
[6:02:04] to the LEA code of conduct
[6:02:05] rule R277322.
 Matt Hymas: The motion before
[6:02:15] us then is that the board
[6:02:16] continue and approve R277-301 educator licensing draft two
[6:02:22] one second and final reading. Seeing no additional lights,
[6:02:25] let's go ahead and vote.
[6:02:30] [Members voting]
[6:02:57] Okay. That passes ten in favor, five opposed. Those
[6:03:03] opposed being Member Boothe, Member Davis, Member Kelley, Member Green and Member
[6:03:07] Boggess.
[6:03:09] Back to you, Chair Kerry.
[6:03:16] Joseph Kerry: The next item
[6:03:18] before the full board is 7.4, teacher preparation programs.
[6:03:26] The motion is that the board
[6:03:27] approve R277-304,
[6:03:36] teacher preparation programs draft one on second and final reading and I do have a question for Doctor Hite on
[6:03:42] this matter.
[6:03:48] Matt Hymas: Okay. Draft 1 or
[6:03:50] 2? I have draft one.
[6:03:53] Joseph Kerry: I have draft one as well.
[6:03:58] Matt Hymas: Maybe we can get
[6:04:00] some clarity on that. Do you remember seeing draft two out
[6:04:03] of committee? Okay. So the motion that came out of committee before we get to the
[6:04:09] committee is that the board
[6:04:10] approve R277-304 teacher
[6:04:14] preparation programs on draft one on second and final reading and back to you for
[6:04:19] your question.
[6:04:20] Joseph Kerry: Thank you. Through the chair, this is something we were discussing
[6:04:25] during lunch. Is there any provision in 304 that
[6:04:30] expressly prohibits a for
[6:04:32] profit entity from providing an educator
[6:04:37] preparation program?
[6:04:48] >> Thank you? Chair. Malia, executive coordinator of
[6:04:50] education licensing. 304 does not have the provisions of
[6:04:55] who can and cannot be an educator preparation program.
[6:05:01] That is in R
[6:05:05] 277303 The Educator Preparation Program rule. This rule is only for teacher preparation programs that must
[6:05:12] also meet the educator
[6:05:13] preparation programs. All educators include school psychologists and counselors.
[6:05:18] This rule is focused to the requirements of teacher must
[6:05:21] meet in order to obtain licensure.
[6:05:23] Joseph Kerry: Thank you, Chair.
[6:05:29] Matt Hymas: Seeing no
[6:05:32] additional lights let's keep this up for a vote. The motion again is that the board
[6:05:36] approve R277-304
[6:05:40] teacher preparation programs
[6:05:43] draft one on second and final reading. Voting is open. Thank
[6:05:46] you.
[6:05:50] [Members voting] That passes 13
[6:05:56] in favor, two opposed, those coming from Member Kelley and Member Davis.
[6:06:02] Joseph Kerry: Next item is
[6:06:04] 7.5, R277-306,
[6:06:12] educator preparation programs for school psychologists,
[6:06:17] audiologists, speech language pathologist, speech language
[6:06:20] technicians, counselors and school social workers. The motion before the full board
[6:06:25] is that the board approve
[6:06:31] R277-306, educator preparation
[6:06:35] programs for school psychologists, audiologists,
[6:06:38] speech language pathologists,
[6:06:40] speech language technicians, counselors and school social
[6:06:44] workers on draft two on second and final reading.
[6:06:50] Matt Hymas:
[6:06:50] Okay. The motion is that the
[6:06:57] board approve R277-306
[6:07:03] educator preparation program for school psychologists,
[6:07:06] audiologists, speech language pathologists, speech language
[6:07:09] technicians, counselors, and
[6:07:12] school social workers, draft two on second and final reading. Seeing no lights,
[6:07:17] let's put it to a vote. That passes 12 in favor, three
[6:07:23] opposed. Those opposed are members green, Boggess and
[6:07:26] Kelley.
[6:07:29] Joseph Kerry: This is item
[6:07:31] 7.6, R277-101 public participation on Utah State
[6:07:44] Board of Education meetings and the motion before the
[6:07:47] board is that the board
[6:07:49] continue R277-101 public participation in Utah state
[6:08:00] board of education meetings.
[6:08:04] The language would be that
[6:08:20] --
[6:08:20] any comment not permitted to be made during the public
[6:08:23] comment session portion of the
[6:08:27] meeting
[6:08:31] will be available in backup
[6:08:40] and labeled as potentially
[6:08:45] explicit or
[6:08:47] offensive.
[6:08:52] And with a second, I would
[6:08:55] speak to the motion.
[6:09:07] Matt Hymas: Do we have a
[6:09:08] second? We have a second. If
[6:09:11] you will speak to that, where
[6:09:14] does this go?
 Joseph Kerry: We can just add
[6:09:19] it to the very end as a new
[6:09:20] heading. I mean, I can come up
[6:09:23] with -- I would just add it to
[6:09:27] line 81, and the title would
[6:09:32] be prohibited public comment, and then it would be followed
[6:09:37] by this language.
[6:09:47] >> (Indistinct)
 Joseph Kerry: So I will ask
[6:09:51] you what I asked my wife. If you had the answer, why did
[6:09:54] you ask me?
[6:09:57] Matt Hymas: That's a great question and I got it from these two ladies sitting on
[6:10:01] the side.
[6:10:05] Joseph Kerry: That's fine. That's a fine place to put it,
[6:10:08] Chair.
[6:10:11] Matt Hymas: Yeah. It sounds like we are less concerned about where it is but we want
[6:10:15] it in there. Go ahead and speak to the motion then we
[6:10:17] will open it up for questions.
Joseph
[6:10:24] Kerry: And I'm sorry. It should say any comment or materials not permitted to be
[6:10:26] made or shown during the public comment. But just
[6:10:28] speaking to it, generally this comes up because what someone
[6:10:32] from the public wants to share during the public comment
[6:10:35] section violates this board's
[6:10:38] rules of decorum, that we don't want them speaking and
[6:10:43] sharing things that
[6:10:47] many times we have students in
[6:10:50] the room. We have people
[6:10:53] listening online. And so the chair will ask that they not
[6:10:58] share it and that they submit
[6:11:00] it to the board. And the three times that that has happened
[6:11:04] since I've been on the board, the speaker will generally
[6:11:09] have a printout of what they
[6:11:10] wanted to read, which is typically a book found in one
[6:11:15] of our public school libraries. And they will disseminate that to each
[6:11:19] member at this table. That is
[6:11:21] not really public comment then because every other public
[6:11:25] comment, you can listen to anywhere in the state and you can find out that is what they
[6:11:31] wanted to share. That is what
[6:11:33] they wanted to say. But when we only give them the ability
[6:11:37] to share that with us, that generally stops with us. They
[6:11:44] can't really share it with the
[6:11:46] entire body. With the entire listening audience. So when I
[6:11:52] was first discussing this to see well would it be better
[6:11:55] just to change our rules of decorum
[6:11:58] I mean if this book is in our public school library why not just have them read it out
[6:12:03] loud? It's available in our
[6:12:04] schools. But I did think that
[6:12:09] we are a different body and I
[6:12:12] thought it would be best instead of just having them show the materials or read the
[6:12:17] materials in real time, that
[6:12:19] if we permitted them to put
[6:12:21] this into backup with this label so people know if I
[6:12:26] click here there's going to be something that maybe I don't want to see or don't want to
[6:12:30] read, that would still permit
[6:12:32] them to exercise their constitutional First Amendment
[6:12:37] right to put this information out to the system. To the body. Because otherwise they
[6:12:42] are limited to just giving it
[6:12:44] to us and that would be the same as if we have a speaker
[6:12:48] come to the podium. We usher
[6:12:50] everybody outside the room. We turn off the broadcast and say
[6:12:55] okay. Now share your comment. The 15 of us will hear it and
[6:12:58] then resume the meeting. That is really what we are doing
[6:13:02] when people want to share
[6:13:05] something in public comment and we cite our rules of
[6:13:09] decorum. They are really sharing that just with us and
[6:13:13] we are treating them differently because of the
[6:13:16] content they are seeking to
[6:13:17] share. And generally, you can't do that as a government body. So if they want to come
[6:13:24] and talk about anything else comment you can tell the
[6:13:27] board. You can tell the audience in the room and you
[6:13:29] can tell the people listening online.
[6:13:34] But if it violates our rules of decorum then the only
[6:13:37] people you are allowed to tell
[6:13:41] -- it's the board. Not only
[6:13:46] -- even the people in the room
[6:13:48] get to see it. Just the board. That is the purpose behind the
[6:13:51] motion. I was trying to find this balance between do we
[6:13:54] really push, as a body, to say
[6:13:57] look, it's the first Amendment. We should treat
[6:14:01] their speech just like anyone else. But this allows them to put their information out
[6:14:06] there so if a member of the press wants to see what's wrong with that book Kim I
[6:14:10] quote what they're trying to share? They can access it.
[6:14:13] Otherwise it is just the 15 of
[6:14:16] us, and I believe we are treating speech differently
[6:14:20] based on its content. I don't believe that is appropriate
[6:14:23] when it is not the least
[6:14:25] restrictive means. To me, this meets that because we are
[6:14:31] providing an outlet for it instead of really saying you
[6:14:34] can't share that with anyone but the board.
[6:14:39] Matt Hymas: Thank you. Before
[6:14:41] I call on you, Member Davis, I
[6:14:43] have a question. I support this but I do have a couple of
[6:14:47] questions that could be
[6:14:48] helpful. One
[6:14:54] is the timing. We have already seen some backups be uploaded
[6:15:00] and so I can't -- I don't know
[6:15:02] how to say okay. So if something comes in, you are
[6:15:06] going to republish, republish. So I would like to have an
[6:15:10] expectation. Of course, even if we said it was similar to
[6:15:14] ours, and ours is, if you
[6:15:18] remember, staff is Tuesday.
[6:15:22] Tuesday of last week by five.
[6:15:26] Ours is Tuesday of this week by three. And so I would
[6:15:30] probably hope that we could put the public in that range,
[6:15:33] as well. Because I can't have
[6:15:36] Cybil uploading this morning when they say I need a public
[6:15:40] comment. The other thing is
[6:15:43] timing. The other thing is,
[6:15:47] many of you don't see the conversations that sometimes I
[6:15:51] have to have with individuals
[6:15:53] and maybe Cybil. Specifically
[6:15:58] , on things like UPAC cases
[6:16:05] where I say you are welcome to share public comment but be aware that these are some
[6:16:10] complications that could come forward. So when we open it up
[6:16:13] to any comment from materials not permitted to be made or
[6:16:16] shown,
[6:16:19] there is some concern not only
[6:16:22] to protect us, which I'm not
[6:16:26] worried about protecting us. I'm actually worried about protecting the public comment
[6:16:30] or. So thoughts?
[6:16:34] Joseph Kerry: Thank you, Chair. If I understand the
[6:16:37] first question correctly, I don't think that would be an issue in the sense that they
[6:16:41] would not be required to preemptively upload anything.
[6:16:45] It is not until they are at that podium and start to speak
[6:16:48] and the decision is made that what you are sharing would be
[6:16:51] a violation of our rules of decorum. At that point in time, whatever they wanted to
[6:16:56] share would go into backup.
[6:17:01] Matt Hymas: I hate to have a
[6:17:03] one on one here -- of the
[6:17:04] current month or of next month's?
[6:17:11] Joseph Kerry: I would defer to
[6:17:13] staff on that. It would depend on when they could get that to Cybil. When they could get
[6:17:17] that to whoever is responsible for putting it in the backup.
[6:17:20] But right now, whatever that time line would be would be
[6:17:25] better than what we currently
[6:17:26] have, which is they are only talking to 15 of us. So I
[6:17:30] would say, to the extent that we can accommodate that but
[6:17:34] nothing would be preemptively
[6:17:36] uploaded into backup. This would become a okay. We see
[6:17:42] where you are going with this and our rules permit this to
[6:17:46] be put into backup permit
[6:17:48] currently, it does not. That
[6:17:50] is where I'm looking to go. As to your second point. And
[6:17:56] then to the extent I'm allowed to make an amendment to my own
[6:17:59] motion I could, but I think you bring up a valid point,
[6:18:02] which is, I don't think it is open house on anyone who wants
[6:18:06] to stuff things into backup. I do think that this motion
[6:18:11] could be improved by adding
[6:18:14] , not permitted to be made or shown due to the board's rules
[6:18:20] of decorum. That way, it is
[6:18:24] not just anyone coming in and saying, I want to put this in.
[6:18:28] I want to get this out. That
[6:18:31] determination would initially have to be made that this
[6:18:34] violates our rules of decorum.
[6:18:36] If it doesn't, they could say whatever they want to say
[6:18:40] straight from the podium.
 Matt Hymas: If I can still
[6:18:47] -- if it's okay. I would like
[6:18:49] to amend the amendment to whatever Joe just said. Is
[6:18:52] that a thing?
[6:18:56] Okay. Well. Let me put this amendment in
[6:19:03] there then we can vote up or down. That will open it up for
[6:19:07] another amendment. Is that
[6:19:08] okay? 
 >> (Indistinct)
[6:19:31] Matt Hymas: Can you make that
[6:19:33] point, Vice Chair Wood?
 >> Sure. Staff was just pointing out that our civic
[6:19:39] clerk has a backup with a 24 hour at least notice to public
[6:19:42] of what's going on in a meeting future agenda item.
[6:19:46] This may be better put in as an addendum to our meeting
[6:19:48] minutes. That shows what is happening in the meeting at
[6:19:52] that time rather than trying to go back to backup. Which is a forward looking thing.
[6:19:59] to that, as long as the minutes are available online
[6:20:04] to the public as well. If they
[6:20:07] are, I don't have any objection.
[6:20:10] >> Okay. My motion them, my
[6:20:14] amendment to this is to add
[6:20:18] any comments or materials not
[6:20:19] permitted to be made or shown due to the board's rules of
[6:20:25] decorum during the public comment portion of the meeting
[6:20:30] will be updated or made
[6:20:32] available or be available
[6:20:35] -- in meeting minutes. And
[6:20:40] labeled as potentially
[6:20:41] explicit or offensive. I guess the potentially offensive
[6:20:47] would be -- if it's explicit
[6:20:49] it's explicit. Depending on who you're talking to -- I'm
[6:20:54] not going to nitpick. Just as I'm reading through this and
[6:20:57] trying to -- I think that is my amendment -- that would be
[6:21:02] my amendment to Member motion. Let me make sure that captures
[6:21:06] it. Kerry, I would ask that you look at this as well and
[6:21:10] make sure that that makes sense. Go ahead, Cindy. Shout
[6:21:14] it out.
[6:21:18] >> (inaudible)
[6:21:24] >> So you are going to give me
[6:21:25] suggestion on my amendment, because I don't even have a second yet.. If you consider
[6:21:31] adding the word policy related before you get a second, so it
[6:21:35] would be -- going back up to Member Kerry, any comment or
[6:21:41] materials not permitted to be made, but it would say any
[6:21:44] policy related comment or materials. I think this is
[6:21:49] mostly for our materials in
[6:21:50] our schools and our libraries and that would all be related
[6:21:54] to policy materials. If someone comes in like -- a
[6:21:58] couple years ago we had a guy
[6:21:59] who would make threats against our former Superintendent, big time. That stuff I don't think
[6:22:06] should be put in. That's a whole nother one. The Exorcist, that kind of stuff
[6:22:11] probably shouldn't be put in.
 >> I'll be putting that in my
[6:22:13] amendment. I agree with you
[6:22:16] here. My amendment --
[6:22:19] amendment to Chair carries amendment is that the board
[6:22:24] amend this so it would read,
[6:22:28] any comments or materials not
[6:22:30] permitted to be -- any
[6:22:33] comments or materials
[6:22:38] -- any policy-related comments or materials not permitted to
[6:22:44] be made or shown during the public comment portion of the meeting due to the board's rules of decorum and will be
[6:22:51] available in meeting minutes
[6:22:53] and labeled as explicit or potentially offensive. That
[6:22:58] has been seconded. It has been
[6:23:00] stated. Let's vote.
[6:23:23] [members voting]
[6:23:34] >> Voting is over.
[6:24:01] Okay, that passes unanimously.
[6:24:06] So we go back to the amendment
[6:24:10] which we've kind of rewritten. It's going to be the same
[6:24:14] thing. I amended his amendment
[6:24:16] to. The amendment is now as we
[6:24:20] just voted. Member Kerry, you have a light on, but is it for this amendment? I'll ask so we
[6:24:29] don't have to go through the entire process, is there any objection to this being the
[6:24:33] final amendment -- not the final amendment, but this
[6:24:37] amendment? This is the wording
[6:24:38] that will be -- the policy or
[6:24:42] the rule -- the rule. Is there
[6:24:44] any objection? Okay. With
[6:24:48] that, we are on -- let me restate the motion. Because we
[6:24:55] do have other comments. Or
[6:24:57] questions or motions. The motion is now that the board
[6:25:04] continue R277-101, public
[6:25:06] participation in Utah State Board of Education meetings,
[6:25:08] as amended by Sherwood.
[6:25:12] >> I have a simple motion to strike lines 73 through 78 and
[6:25:17] in a second I'll speak to
[6:25:19] that.
[6:25:45] >> It's not that nobody is
[6:25:45] seconding it.
[6:25:53] Okay
[6:25:55] >> So the motion is to strike lines 73 through 78. It's on
[6:26:00] the screen. If you haven't read it or you're currently reading it, it has been
[6:26:04] seconded. Go ahead, Vice Chair Wood.
[6:26:07] >> I realize that it says that in order for us to have an
[6:26:10] electronic meeting that we waive the requirement to have
[6:26:14] a quorum present in a single anchor location in the event
[6:26:19] of pandemic or other public emergency. We do have
[6:26:21] electronic meetings. We don't have a single anchor location.
[6:26:25] As I follow up with staff, I learned this was language that
[6:26:29] was once -- and a statute
[6:26:31] around the pandemic time. So
[6:26:34] it is old language. I feel like line 79 and 80 are sufficient -- if the board
[6:26:40] conducts an electronic meeting any member may participate and vote so long as the vote meets
[6:26:44] quorum requirements, which
[6:26:46] means we have eight of us. 73 through 78 are no longer
[6:26:50] needed.
[6:26:55] >> Member Kerry?
 >> It's probably more appropriate for staff, but
[6:26:59] does this mean that if
[6:27:01] leadership decides well, we shouldn't be meeting every month in person, we're just
[6:27:06] going to meet electronically
[6:27:13] -- by doing away with this
[6:27:13] language,
[6:27:13] would that facilitate that taking place? Like right now
[6:27:20] the way I read it is for any
[6:27:22] meeting of this board, at least eight of us have to be
[6:27:26] in person. If we do away with
[6:27:29] this, then there wouldn't be a requirement for any of us to
[6:27:34] be in person. We could hold our board meetings all
[6:27:38] virtually. Would that be correct? If that assumption is
[6:27:42] correct, would we ever have to
[6:27:44] meet in person? Or can we just have every meeting every month
[6:27:48] virtually?
[6:27:52] >> It sounds like on lines 75, notwithstanding subsection
[6:27:55] three, the board chair may waive the requirement that a quorum be present at a single
[6:27:59] anchor. It sounds like I could
[6:28:01] do that in any way. I say "I," the board chair. I don't think
[6:28:07] that this language does
[6:28:10] anything.
 >> It doesn't do anything
[6:28:14] differently that the chair could do today.
 >> That's what I'm thinking.
[6:28:19] >> Thank you, Chair. Okay so
[6:28:21] the motion is to remove lines
[6:28:23] 73 through 78 from the policy
[6:28:27] or from the rural. Let's go
[6:28:30] ahead and vote on that.
[6:29:01] Okay, that passes 14 in favor and one opposed coming from
[6:29:07] Member Kerry. That brings us to the underlying motion and that is that the board
[6:29:14] continue R277-101, public participation in Utah state Board of Education meetings,
[6:29:19] as amended. Is that right? Did
[6:29:24] I move something? And
[6:29:26] approved. Is it? >> (inaudible)
[6:29:38] >> The motion is that the
[6:29:38] board continue and approve
[6:29:42] R277-101, public participation in Utah state Board of
[6:29:45] Education meetings, as
[6:29:46] amended. Let's vote.
[6:30:17] Okay, that passes unanimously.
[6:30:20] Back to you, Chair Kerry.
[6:30:26] >> The next item is 7.7,
[6:30:31] R277-409, public school membership and associations.
[6:30:33] The motion before the board is that the board continue
[6:30:38] R277-409, public school
[6:30:40] membership and associations. This motion passed unanimously
[6:30:43] with licensing by all those present.
 >> And the motion then is that
[6:30:47] the board continue R277-409, public school membership and
[6:30:53] associations. Member Boggess?
[6:30:56] >> I would like to amend line
[6:30:57] 29. And staff has the motion up there that we would strike,
[6:31:06] beginning in the 17 and 18 school year, and after the
[6:31:09] word "with," we would add "Utah
[6:31:17] code" in R277. I think we need
[6:31:23] the word "and" in there.
[6:31:27] Superintendent?
[6:31:41] >> Okay.
[6:31:41] So there is the context. It
[6:31:43] would now read, " a public
[6:31:48] school may not be a member of or pay dues to an association
[6:31:53] that adopts rules or policies
[6:31:56] that are inconsistent
[6:31:58] with this rule, with this
[6:32:06] R277-409-3, and Utah Code.
[6:32:11] okay. Is that right?
[6:32:15] >> Yeah.
 >> Is there a second? Is there
[6:32:19] a second? Back to you, Member Boggess.
[6:32:23] >> I think this brings us to our all encompassing thing.
[6:32:27] Recently the legislature passed a few -- and there are some currently existing that
[6:32:31] really need to be implemented
[6:32:34] in this area. I think it just puts us in a place where we
[6:32:37] draw attention to it. That if we are doing business and
[6:32:42] paying to these associations, they are in compliance with
[6:32:45] our legislative code in the state. I think that would be
[6:32:49] the synthetic version. I can expand if you would like me
[6:32:52] to.
 >> Thank you.
[6:32:56] >> Member Earl?
 >> I thought you would speak to this. You said oh shoot,
[6:33:00] you were all cued up double Dutch I've got Member Earl,
[6:33:04] but -- okay.
[6:33:08] >> That is what I mean. And Utah code. It seems very
[6:33:11] broad. I guess it doesn't matter then.
[6:33:14] >> From what I understand, it just means that these associations need to make sure
[6:33:19] they are in line with our rule
[6:33:20] and the law. So this is an amendment. And we are striking
[6:33:29] the words, beginning with the 2017, 2018 school year, and
[6:33:33] adding the words "and Utah
[6:33:39] code" to the end. Member Davis.
[6:33:40] >> I'm just reading the
[6:33:41] content. If there's a local membership and association,
[6:33:47] and it has a national
[6:33:50] component, does that preclude
[6:33:55] -- like for example, someone
[6:33:57] said to me once, why is USBE a member of --? Because it has
[6:34:03] some national opinion that is
[6:34:05] different than how we feel in Utah. There are two schools of
[6:34:09] thought. One is that we are being influenced by them. But
[6:34:13] the other is that we have
[6:34:14] great things happening here and we can influence them. And that is why we go
[6:34:20] and participate and share. So
[6:34:24] does this preclude that?
[6:34:28] If they are a member of the local whatever and they have a national component, does it preclude them or get rid of
[6:34:36] all of those associations,
[6:34:38] state associations?
 >> A good question because I
[6:34:43] don't know what their rules or policies would be that would
[6:34:47] dictate -- as an association
[6:34:48] dictate with their rules the
[6:34:52] rules of the LEA? Speaking of
[6:34:58] nasbe specifically, as a member of that board we have
[6:35:01] made sure -- I have sat there
[6:35:04] and had a conversation saying we are not taking positions. You have red and blue states
[6:35:09] alike in Nasbe, and that's your point. We need to stop
[6:35:13] taking positions. Feed us
[6:35:16] information. Unbiased
[6:35:18] information. As far as their
[6:35:21] rules or policies, do they dictate what we do? They
[6:35:26] dictate what they do.
 >> Here's a question. If
[6:35:31] there's an association, there's a lobbyist association
[6:35:34] like the teachers association, and if they have a policy that
[6:35:38] is different or they advocate
[6:35:40] against or the legislature to change something, then does
[6:35:44] this make it illegal for them to be involved in those
[6:35:48] associations?
[6:35:51] >> Member Boggess?
 >> The answer is no because it
[6:35:56] would not -- it says a public
[6:35:59] school may not be a member of
[6:36:04] -- and the EA teachers are a member of -- so there's a distinct separation. We're
[6:36:08] talking about the LEA in particular. Right here we're
[6:36:11] not talking about the USBE. We're talking about public
[6:36:15] schools.
 >> Would that be the school
[6:36:18] board? Like the school board
[6:36:20] of an LEA?
 >> I don't know that it means the school board, but it does
[6:36:26] say a public school may not be
[6:36:28] a member of or pay dues to an association. It would be the
[6:36:33] board. It's funny but I opted not to go all in to the
[6:36:37] minutia. You should be proud of me even though -- you
[6:36:41] should be proud of me.
[6:36:44] >> It's an inanimate object. A school can't do that anyway.
[6:36:48] It doesn't make sense.
 >> Why don't we just say an
[6:36:55] LEA? I was going to avoid that
[6:36:56] amendment. I know you're proud of me but since it prompted a
[6:36:58] question without objection, an
[6:37:04] LEA may not be a member of or
[6:37:10] -- >> (inaudible)
[6:37:13] >> I hope it doesn't have unintended consequences if that component has a national
[6:37:14] component.
[6:37:17] >> You are saying can a
[6:37:20] object, a school be part of an
[6:37:23] organization? And the answer,
[6:37:26] we believe, is possibly yes. And the glaring example is the
[6:37:36] UHSAA. It's what we're
[6:37:37] hearing, right? And if you say
[6:37:40] LEA, that is encompassed. That's fine. But your
[6:37:43] elementary school will not be part of that but your high
[6:37:45] school will be. I do believe it still works in public
[6:37:51] school. If you change to an LEA, I don't think that's
[6:37:57] going to break anything. Did that just send you deeper into the mud?
[6:38:03] >> It doesn't help me with
[6:38:04] -- what about USBE a? I don't
[6:38:08] know. Just move forward. I can
[6:38:12] let it go.
[6:38:20] >> Here's where we are. I'm
[6:38:20] sorry. We still have a public
[6:38:22] school. But a public school
[6:38:26] may not be a member of -- I'm not saying replace that, I'm
[6:38:32] just saying what was before
[6:38:34] the body is the phrasing, "A
[6:38:40] public school may not be a member of our paid dues to an association that adopts rules
[6:38:43] or policies that are
[6:38:44] inconsistent with this R277-40
[6:38:51] (inaudible) or Utah code.
[6:38:53] Member I feel like
 >> I feel like Christina. I
[6:38:58] don't want to make this more complicated. This was a rule
[6:39:01] designed to address issues ten
[6:39:05] years ago with UHSAA. My recollection is -- I should
[6:39:12] know this. It is not LEAs that
[6:39:19] join UHSAA. It is schools. And
[6:39:21] they are treated individually
[6:39:23] within the context of UHSAA. I
[6:39:31] think we stick with that
[6:39:32] understanding. Well, because
[6:39:37] -- it cannot target a specific
[6:39:42] private organization, but that
[6:39:45] was their intent. At the time. And special legislation of
[6:39:52] sorts. Only in rural form. So
[6:39:57] that was the point. I think,
[6:40:01] although it is odd -- it's appropriate to read a public
[6:40:04] school may not be a member of
[6:40:05] or pay dues to-- if you don't
[6:40:10] mind adding in thatc public school I don't want to
[6:40:24] comma-- Just stick with public school.
[6:40:24] I don't want to make it more complicated. Let's be honest and say this is about concerns
[6:40:28] the board and legislature had
[6:40:30] about UHSAA and this was a compromise from ten years ago.
[6:40:35] So the motion before us -- it's to strike beginning with
[6:40:40] the 2017 2018 school year and
[6:40:43] add "or Utah code." let's go
[6:40:48] ahead and vote.
[6:41:08] That passes 13 in favor and two abstentions coming from
[6:41:13] Member Green and Member Davis.
[6:41:15] This brings us back to our underlying motion and that is
[6:41:18] that the board continue R277-409, public school
[6:41:24] membership in associations. As amended. Sorry. We need to say
[6:41:32] -- the motion will now say that the board continue and
[6:41:36] approve R277-409, public
[6:41:40] school membership in associations, as amended.
[6:41:43] Let's vote when that is ready.
[6:41:48] There it is.
[6:41:58] [members voting]
[6:42:21] >> That passes 14 in favor, one abstention, and that comes
[6:42:23] from Member Davis. Board members let me ask, in that
[6:42:26] last conversation there are 15 of us -- and I think there
[6:42:31] were seven side conversations.
[6:42:34] It's fine. What I am reading is -- we may need a five
[6:42:39] minute break? Is that okay?
[6:42:41] Let's do it. (laughs) let's set a timer for seven minutes.
[6:42:47] Thank you.
[6:51:26] >> Board members come but we
[6:51:26] want to get started. Christina
[6:51:27] needs a minute. She just dropped a bomb of a joke. I
[6:51:33] don't know what happened
[6:51:34] there. I also need Chair Kerry. I don't even have Vice
[6:51:39] Chair Bollinger. There's Chair right there.
[6:51:46] okay. And Chair, I can't turn on your mic. I'm calling this back to order so we can get
[6:51:55] going.
[6:51:58] Okay, Christina is good. We don't have a quorum.
 >> We have a quorum but for
[6:52:05] some reason -- this side of
[6:52:09] the table --
[6:52:15] >> Five, six, seven --
[6:52:17] eight, nine -- ten --
[6:52:23] there's 11. I thought there
[6:52:28] was like --
[6:52:36] >> All right, whenever you are ready. If you want to wait for
[6:52:38] a second that's fine. Whenever
[6:52:40] you are ready. 
 >> So Chair, the next item is
[6:52:49] 7.9, R277-211, Utah professional Practices advisory Commission, rules of
[6:52:54] procedure notification to educators, complaints and
[6:52:56] final disciplinary actions. The motion before the board is
[6:53:01] that the board approve
[6:53:04] R277-211, Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission,
[6:53:08] rules of procedure -- and
[6:53:11] final disciplinary actions, draft one on second and final
[6:53:14] reading. I do have three motions on this. Thank you Chair.
[6:53:20] >> All right so the motion that came out of committee is
[6:53:22] that the board approve R277-211, Utah Professional
[6:53:28] Practices Advisory Commission, rules and procedure.
[6:53:31] Notification to educators, complaints and disciplinary
[6:53:33] actions, draft on second and
[6:53:36] final reading. Chair Kerry, back to you.
[6:53:41] >> Thank you Chair. My first
[6:53:44] motion is on line 40. It would
[6:53:49] have to actually be to create
[6:53:51] a new line 40 that would read
[6:53:57] -- and it's right there listed as number one -- it would read
[6:54:00] Roman numeral for, the names and contact information if
[6:54:04] known for any witnesses, and with a second I would like to
[6:54:06] speak to that motion.
 >> There's a second. Let me
[6:54:11] make sure -- to backup we have the draft that came out of
[6:54:15] Committee. There's a draft three in backup that says
[6:54:20] -- >> Draft one came out of
[6:54:21] Committee. Which draft --
[6:54:25] which draft are you adjusting? Draft one.
[6:54:30] >> Thank you. And as you said in here, I don't know what
[6:54:34] line that is but it's section
[6:54:35] two, subsection 2B, IV or 4.
[6:54:42] And you want to include or add the contact information if
[6:54:46] known for any witnesses. It's been seconded. Go ahead and
[6:54:50] speak to that.
 >> Sure. I'm looking to create
[6:54:54] -- if you look at line 39
[6:54:55] Roman numeral triple I, LEA,
[6:54:58] I'm looking to -- with this. And right now if you read
[6:55:04] lines 30-39, when someone
[6:55:08] files a UPPAC complaint, they have to provide this information if it's known --
[6:55:15] name, address, all these
[6:55:18] things. The one thing we don't
[6:55:20] expressly require or request is the names of any witnesses
[6:55:26] or witness to the allegation
[6:55:29] being made. And what's happening is that it presents
[6:55:32] the opportunity for a determination to be made as to
[6:55:36] whether or not there should be investigation, without the
[6:55:40] opportunity to conduct these investigations ahead of time, to look at and see are there
[6:55:45] witnesses that should be contacted? Are there witnesses
[6:55:49] out there that we should be
[6:55:51] contacting? By requiring this
[6:55:55] information to be listed, I
[6:55:57] think it provides UPPAC with information early on about the existence of any witnesses who
[6:56:04] should be contacted. It does not require that they be
[6:56:07] contacted but it certainly
[6:56:09] provides notice that there are other individuals who may know
[6:56:14] something about this matter.
[6:56:16] Thank you, Chair.
[6:56:20] >> So the motion is to add a
[6:56:24] new line in line 40 -- this is
[6:56:29] before -- it would be 4 or IV-
[6:56:36] the names or contact
[6:56:36] information, if known, for any witnesses. Let's move this to
[6:56:40] a vote.
[6:56:47] >> (inaudible) it's not your
[6:56:47] fault. Member Kelley, go ahead.
[6:56:52] >> I want to speak in favor of
[6:56:54] this motion. I do have a question for the motion. I'm
[6:56:59] curious if we need to
[6:57:01] differentiate that the
[6:57:04] witnesses -- I'm concerned
[6:57:08] that the students -- versus
[6:57:13] adults. Do we need to differentiate witnesses
[6:57:19] , that they should be adults?
[6:57:22] I don't know if you want UPPAC
[6:57:26] investigators going in and interviewing students and
[6:57:28] minors. >> (inaudible)
[6:57:44] >> Member Kerry, please.
[6:57:45] >> Thank you. That's a legitimate question and
[6:57:48] concern, board member Kelley.
[6:57:51] But there are several instances. The one that's top
[6:57:56] of mind is
[6:58:01] following the death of Charlie
[6:58:07] Kirk, there was a UPPAC matter filed was something said or
[6:58:15] not. The witnesses to that educator were students in the
[6:58:18] classroom. And so in that
[6:58:22] sense there was no way to really determine, was this
[6:58:26] said or wasn't it said? There's a similar concern
[6:58:31] -- I want to make it clear that this information is
[6:58:33] confidential. It's not provided to the public. This
[6:58:36] is housed within the system.
[6:58:39] And again, it's just to alert
[6:58:45] UPPAC that it doesn't have to be reduced to a he said, she said, that there may be
[6:58:50] witnesses to this matter. I
[6:58:52] think UPPAC's internal
[6:58:56] processes should permit them to exercise judgment in terms of who to contact and who not
[6:59:00] to. One of them I believe is based on their age.
[6:59:04] >> Thank you.
[6:59:12] >> I don't see any additional
[6:59:13] -- let me restate the motion
[6:59:15] here and then we will move to a vote. The motion is that the
[6:59:19] board amend draft one by
[6:59:21] adding to the list in
[6:59:26] R277-211-2 (inaudible) a new
[6:59:28] line, 40, that reads, (inaudible).
[6:59:35] the names and contact information, if known, for any
[6:59:38] witnesses. Let's vote.
[7:00:05] [members voting]
[7:00:59] >> That motion passes, nine in
[7:00:59] favor, one abstention, two no
[7:01:01] votes and three absent. For abstention I've got Member Davis, no votes from Member
[7:01:06] Hymas and Member Lear. And Member Kerry, I believe you
[7:01:10] have some additional motions. Go ahead. There you go.
[7:01:15] >> I do. Thank you Chair. If
[7:01:16] you go to line 133,
[7:01:22] it would be line 133 begin if
[7:01:27] this would really be like 7A.
[7:01:32] And it would read, the educator shall be notified of
[7:01:35] their right to receive a copy
[7:01:38] of the UPPAC case file in Utah evidence file at no cost in
[7:01:44] writing. If additional information is double dashed
[7:01:47] to the case file, or evidence file, this material shall be
[7:01:51] provided to the educator
[7:01:52] without request and at no cost. I would like to speak to that with a second.
[7:01:58] >> Can we get that on the
[7:02:00] screen? I want to make sure
[7:02:04] -- I've got A and B. Member Kerry, are these your
[7:02:12] motions?
>> Yes sir. And it's got a second
[7:02:12] from Member Kelley. Is that right? Back to you.
[7:02:17] >> Currently if you look at line 131, we call that up on
[7:02:21] the screen -- our rules already require that,
[7:02:28] upon the request of an
[7:02:29] educator, if you are in UPPAC and you request this, you have
[7:02:36] to be provided with that. And you get two things when an educator or teacher makes this
[7:02:39] request. It's supposed to send
[7:02:42] that educator, that teacher a
[7:02:45] copy of the UPPAC case file.
[7:02:50] On line 132, the copy of the evidence file. That is already
[7:02:55] in our rules.
[7:02:59] As we have looked into UPPAC, it became apparent that
[7:03:05] educators weren't receiving these two files or these two
[7:03:08] subparts of their file. In many cases because they just
[7:03:12] didn't know they were entitled to ask for it. They didn't know how, if you just ask for
[7:03:18] this and they give it to me
[7:03:21] -- so this rule would just not
[7:03:25] require the disclosure of any additional information that
[7:03:29] the teacher is not already required to receive. It would
[7:03:33] simply require the Executive
[7:03:35] Secretary to notify the teacher, the educator of their
[7:03:40] right to receive a copy of
[7:03:42] these things and add the provision, as we do now, that
[7:03:47] it be provided at no cost to. That is currently not a protection we have in our
[7:03:52] rural. It's my understanding
[7:03:54] we don't charge for this. I'm just saying come on let's that put that in the rule. So we
[7:03:59] don't charge for providing of this material. The other thing
[7:04:04] -- let's say that the educator
[7:04:08] requests a copy of their case file and their evidence file
[7:04:13] in March. And UPPAC
[7:04:18] dutifully gives them their case file and their evidence
[7:04:22] file in April. In May, UPPAC receives 22 more pieces of
[7:04:30] paper that they put into the
[7:04:32] evidence file. Instead of requiring the teacher or
[7:04:36] educator to write UPPAC every
[7:04:42] month and say hey, did you receive anything new and could
[7:04:44] you send it to me, B is an automatic trigger. And what
[7:04:49] this does is this allows or
[7:04:51] requires that UPPAC, when it
[7:04:57] receives additional information, that it provide that automatically to the
[7:05:01] educator. This is typical in a discovery in a legal setting
[7:05:07] that once you request information from the opposing party, that if additional
[7:05:12] information becomes available, you are obligated to provide
[7:05:16] that to the other side. You
[7:05:18] can't hide behind -- well, you
[7:05:21] never asked me for this. This really brings us to a practice
[7:05:27] and a system that is already
[7:05:29] in place in the legal or adversarial system which UPPAC
[7:05:38] is. So not requesting any
[7:05:39] additional information be disclosed. Just simply says
[7:05:42] hey, the educator has the right to this. We should let
[7:05:46] them know they have the right
[7:05:47] to it. B says once you give them that information, if you get -- you've got to turn it
[7:05:54] over. We can't play the well,
[7:05:58] you didn't ask for it so I haven't sent it to you. Thank
[7:06:00] you.
[7:06:06] >> Member Lear.
 >> A comment and then a
[7:06:08] question to Executive
[7:06:11] Secretary Rasmussen, UPPAC
[7:06:17] executive Secretary Rasmussen. I'll call on him. It's
[7:06:20] unfortunate that we weren't able to discuss these amendments common these
[7:06:25] proposed amendments in our committee meeting, because I
[7:06:27] would have liked to have heard
[7:06:28] more about the burden on the staff that is clearly understaffed, more
[7:06:36] understaffed than it was a
[7:06:37] month ago. And how much is this going to add to the
[7:06:42] workload and if this is doable, if it's doable then I
[7:06:47] can live with it. I think it's
[7:06:49] unfortunate. I'll discuss this and get more information in a committee meeting rather than
[7:06:54] have to now
[7:06:57] be -- not have as much information as I would like.
[7:07:02] To you Ben, if it's okay, is
[7:07:05] that okay? How much would an
[7:07:08] automatic provision of this sort -- is this possible for
[7:07:13] you given your staffing? Does it change your practice much?
[7:07:17] If you tell me no, then that would be helpful. I'd like to
[7:07:21] hear an honest response.
[7:07:23] >> Rasmussen, director of -- this doesn't concern me at
[7:07:27] all. This is already in our practice.
 >> Great. Thank you. What I
[7:07:31] wanted to hear.
[7:07:39] >> Member Earl?
[7:07:39] >> I would like to make an amendment and it's an organization -- it's not
[7:07:44] amending the -- it would seem
[7:07:46] to me that A actually should
[7:07:51] be 7, and that 7 should be A
[7:07:55] and B. Does that make sense Kim at the parameter should be the executive secretary shall
[7:07:59] -- that should be what 7
[7:08:03] states. And the provision of upon request of the educator,
[7:08:06] that should be A. And B should
[7:08:11] be the executive Secretary. You get notified and then after the notification, if you
[7:08:14] ask for it then -- does that make sense? I think the order
[7:08:17] is off and I don't know if that's -- or if that can be fixed after. At least in my
[7:08:21] view. Should we pass this
[7:08:25] first and then I'll make that motion?
[7:08:28] >> We have already beat up on where things should go in a motion. I hear what you're
[7:08:32] saying -- >> It's disordered.
[7:08:36] >> -- if we want to take a vote on how to place it, fine.
[7:08:39] I'm fine with what you're saying. Let's put it where it
[7:08:42] belongs.
 >> The amendment to be ordered accordingly. I'll just put
[7:08:47] that.
 >>
[7:08:54] So your motion is that the amendment be ordered
[7:08:55] accordingly. Is there any opposition to? Is there any
[7:08:58] opposition to ordering that?
[7:09:00] Okay. Let's go back to -- thank you, Member Earl. Let's
[7:09:05] go back to the beginning of this in the motion then is
[7:09:16] --
[7:09:16] let me just make sure I get
[7:09:17] -- the board amend draft one
[7:09:20] by adding -- I will just say
[7:09:22] adding --
[7:09:26] the Executive Secretary shall notify the educator of their
[7:09:31] right to receive a copy of the
[7:09:36] UPPAC case file and evidence file at no cost, the Executive
[7:09:39] Secretary shall be under a duty to continually disclose additional evidence added to
[7:09:44] the case file. And UPPAC evidence file until the matter
[7:09:48] is resolved. Member Lear, is
[7:09:52] your light back on?
 >> I have another question.
[7:09:55] You realize that we have no
[7:09:57] definition that I can readily see on case file and evidence
[7:10:02] file. I'm wondering if that is
[7:10:05] something that (inaudible) is
[7:10:11] easily understood or if it's something that we need to
[7:10:14] define?
[7:10:17] >> Director Rasmussen?
[7:10:21] >> Those terms are defined in
[7:10:26] R277-210.
 >> Different rule or -- >> We
[7:10:29] have the definitions.
 >> So they are both in their?
[7:10:32] Thank you.
[7:10:35] See no additional lights, I just restated the motion
[7:10:41] -- we're going to queue this up for a vote. Let's get that
[7:10:44] ready to vote on. Okay, voting
[7:10:47] is open.
[7:10:58] [members voting]
[7:11:11] >> That passes unanimously.
[7:11:11] Thank you. Two absent. One
[7:11:13] more. Go ahead.
[7:11:17] >> Thank you, Chair. The third and final amendment
[7:11:22] that I had is to
[7:11:31] -- it says line 66 but that doesn't look
[7:11:44] --
[7:11:48] look at the screen? Sorry.
[7:11:51] That the board amend draft one
[7:11:54] by adding to the end, at the
[7:12:00] end of R277-211-2, as a board member Boggess, that would
[7:12:04] take us to line 60. And the
[7:12:08] motion is that the superintendent shall establish
[7:12:11] an online searchable database of each case decided by the
[7:12:15] board that results in the replication or suspension of
[7:12:19] an educator's license. Eight,
[7:12:22] the database shall include a, the name of the educator, B,
[7:12:26] the name of the school where the conduct occurred if
[7:12:29] applicable, C, the name of the LEA a where the conduct occurred if applicable, d, the
[7:12:34] disciplinary action issued by the board, and e, a brief
[7:12:38] description of the conduct that led to the disciplinary
[7:12:41] action. Nine, the superintendent shall comply with any federal or state
[7:12:46] privacy laws and including information in the database
[7:12:49] and shall remove information if required by law. And with the second I would like to
[7:12:54] speak to that Chair.
 >> We've got a second. Go ahead.
[7:12:58] >> And Chair,
[7:13:01] can staff -- whomever is
[7:13:06] driving, can you go to the
[7:13:09] Utah Division of Public or Professional Licensing com
[7:13:13] with the Doppel site?
[7:13:18] Is that possible? There we go. And so if you are in another
[7:13:25] profession in the state, your licensing isn't generally
[7:13:30] controlled by us. We control,
[7:13:33] lawyers control the licensing for education and the doctors
[7:13:36] have one for themselves. A lot of professionals fall under
[7:13:40] doppel. If you have a contractor that you want to
[7:13:43] hire and you're wondering, has any action been taken against
[7:13:47] them, you would come to this Doppel site and I just want to
[7:13:54] do an A-B comparison because
[7:13:57] Doppel is very streamlined in terms of wow, let me search is this contractor -- have they
[7:14:01] had any action against them? Whoever's driving, if you
[7:14:04] could just scroll down -- and
[7:14:08] right there, that orange
[7:14:10] -- it says " search for
[7:14:15] disciplinary action." you go to the Doppel site in your one click in. If you click that
[7:14:19] button, and we wait for
[7:14:23] refreshing, this is it. I'm
[7:14:27] not going to ask anyone to type in a name. But you type
[7:14:31] in someone's name, if they
[7:14:35] have had a disciplinary action
[7:14:37] against them, of a certain magnitude, you would see their
[7:14:42] name pop up. You would see
[7:14:46] when that action was taken. You would see what the action
[7:14:50] was taken for. And a 1 or 2
[7:14:53] sentence summary of that action. And that tells you as
[7:14:57] a consumer, wow, this is somebody I may not want to
[7:15:02] invite into my home. This may
[7:15:05] be someone I don't want near
[7:15:07] my children. And Doppel does this at a magnitude far
[7:15:12] greater than USBE with the
[7:15:18] teachers. If you are only
[7:15:20] three steps into the Doppel site and you have visibility
[7:15:24] on these individuals, if you
[7:15:29] go to the USBE site, do you know how to find the information whether an action
[7:15:36] was taken against an educator?
[7:15:38] You are about nine clicks in
[7:15:42] before you can identify the
[7:15:46] educator. So what I'm proposing is that right now,
[7:15:51] our disciplinary actions that we take as a board are
[7:15:55] integrated into the system.
[7:15:58] Cactus really isn't designed
[7:16:00] for the public. It was designed for educators. It was
[7:16:05] designed for LEAs and schools to look up, does this person
[7:16:10] have a license? When did they get it? When does it expire?
[7:16:14] What I'm proposing is that we have, as does the lawyer body,
[7:16:18] as does the medical body, as
[7:16:20] does the accounting body, a
[7:16:23] separate pathway for non-educators to simply look
[7:16:28] up and find which educators
[7:16:33] have had -- and this is important -- not any
[7:16:37] disciplinary action -- if they had a letter of reprimand, it wouldn't be in the system. If
[7:16:42] they had a letter of Warning or a letter of education,
[7:16:45] would not be in the system.
[7:16:47] But it would contain -- when this board takes action at the
[7:16:52] suspension level or the revocation level -- it would
[7:16:55] allow the public to look and
[7:16:58] see, that action in this database. And the information
[7:17:04] that would be required in the database -- can I just ask
[7:17:08] who's driving if we could go back to the motion -- the
[7:17:12] information that would be contained in that database would simply be the name of
[7:17:15] the educator, the name of the school where the conduct
[7:17:19] occurred, the name of the LEA
[7:17:25] where the conduct occurred, the disciplinary action -- did
[7:17:26] we revoke, suspend, if so, for how long -- and a brief
[7:17:31] description of the conduct
[7:17:32] that led to the disciplinary action. Also, I think
[7:17:38] provision number nine is very important. If there's any information that shouldn't be
[7:17:43] posted --
[7:17:46] it also must comply with the state privacy law which I
[7:17:50] believe says after ten years -- any disciplinary action
[7:17:53] taken against anyone, not just educators but in the state
[7:17:57] generally -- has to be removed. This isn't hey, once
[7:18:01] you are there -- you there forever. This provision allows
[7:18:06] for the removal of that information. I think it's
[7:18:09] important to increase
[7:18:10] transparency. There is this black hole of information when parents want
[7:18:17] to find out about the teachers
[7:18:20] that are teaching -- that will be teaching their kids come on their grandkids and their
[7:18:24] neighbor kids -- and also,
[7:18:27] there's this hole where we can't see, are some schools
[7:18:32] and some LEAs better and their processes and procedures? The
[7:18:39] system gives that awareness to
[7:18:42] the public. I think that's absolutely essential and beginning to restore trust of
[7:18:48] the public in public
[7:18:50] education. Thank you, Chair.
[7:18:55] >> All right.
[7:18:58] Okay, are you going to wait? I
[7:19:02] know I've got -- I've got a list. If you want to wait
[7:19:07] that's fine. Member Boggess?
[7:19:09] Go ahead.
[7:19:19] >> Thank you Chair. Member
[7:19:19] Kerry, I like this motion but I have some concerns. I'm concerned it's going to narrow
[7:19:23] the scope because if you go to
[7:19:32] (inaudible) schools.Utah.gov
[7:19:32] and there's a person church search, you can already search
[7:19:33] the database and you can find out if a person you are searching for has a reprimand
[7:19:37] on their file. If their license is expired. There's
[7:19:42] already a lot of information and you actually can find out
[7:19:49] not B and C, but you can find
[7:19:51] out A and D.
[7:19:52] In terms of this already. My concern is that by passing
[7:19:55] this we would be getting less information to the public in terms of that searchable
[7:20:00] database that already exists.
[7:20:02] I don't know that we need to create a new database. I think we need to expand the existing
[7:20:08] database because there is already one unless that has
[7:20:12] been suspended through the USIMS process and I'm unaware
[7:20:18] of that. I'm seeing heads shaking no that it's not been
[7:20:20] suspended by the process. For some reason it's not pulling
[7:20:24] in this moment but it is
[7:20:29] (inaudible) forward slash person search. There's a lot of information there. If this
[7:20:32] is the direction we want to head as a board, I am in favor
[7:20:35] of that. And if that transparency. I just don't
[7:20:38] want to go backward as opposed
[7:20:41] to going forward.
[7:20:50] >> We do have -- we're going to have a long list of
[7:20:50] commenters. I'm hesitant to get into a comment back and
[7:20:54] forth. I'm going to wear you out. Do you know what I mean?
[7:20:59] Go ahead here and then we'll put a rotation on there. Go
[7:21:02] ahead, Member Kerry.
 >> There's legitimate concern.
[7:21:07] Nothing in this proposal will eliminate the requirements currently in the system that
[7:21:12] we have. Cactus requires that a reprimand be listed or a
[7:21:16] letter of Warning, it can
[7:21:17] continue to do that. One of the great failings of our current system would just say
[7:21:22] reprimand. It would say suspended. There's no insight
[7:21:26] into the why. That both hurts and helps educators, but I
[7:21:31] think the public is entitled to know the why. I think
[7:21:35] that's why provision E is so
[7:21:36] important. But to your point, nothing in here would stop cactus from operating the way
[7:21:42] that it does. If cactus wants to continue to report on
[7:21:46] reprimands, they can continue to do that. The system I'm
[7:21:50] proposing, this disciplinary
[7:21:52] database, it would not. The other advantage is that it
[7:21:58] allows you to search by school or
[7:22:03] LEA. If my child is now going
[7:22:07] to a new school, they can see
[7:22:09] across the board what disciplinary action the school
[7:22:12] has taken place and against whom.
[7:22:25] Dan very quickly I do appreciate that board member
[7:22:27] Kerry. A brief question so 312
[7:22:30] establishes this database. I believe we already have a rule
[7:22:34] and my question would be is there a reason that we are putting this into 11 instead
[7:22:39] of into 12? That already has
[7:22:42] an established database? And maybe I'm wrong in that. But if somebody could prove me
[7:22:48] wrong and make me smarter, that would be great. Otherwise
[7:22:51] I would -- I may make a motion
[7:22:55] to move this to committee to put this into 312 instead of
[7:22:58] 211. I'm happy to hear the discussion before I make that
[7:23:02] motion. Thank you.
 >> I know you're glancing over
[7:23:05] here. I'm not familiar with -- I know we have 312 but it's the first time hearing of it
[7:23:11] as well. Might be something you can look into and say this
[7:23:14] is where it should be. I agree, I don't know if we necessarily need to create an
[7:23:18] entirely new system. But again, that's for the board to
[7:23:23] decide. I've got Member Lear -- but you jumped in after we
[7:23:28] already went through the list. I've got Member Lear and
[7:23:31] Member woods. You got bumped.
[7:23:36] >> I am curious, a couple of
[7:23:38] things regarding this. First Member Kerry said this would
[7:23:44] have -- this would not show letters of reprimand. But
[7:23:47] disciplinary action implies it would show letters of
[7:23:51] reprimand. I think if we make
[7:23:54] suspension revocation
[7:23:59] -- I think it should say what will be revealed in this, not
[7:24:03] just disciplinary action. I
[7:24:06] think that needs to be clarified. I'm not sure which
[7:24:10] way would be the best way to go. I'm also unclear, if this
[7:24:14] is a new database or if this
[7:24:16] is an extension somehow of the other current
[7:24:20] cactus system that we have
[7:24:27] -- so that is a question. And
[7:24:30] thirdly if it's a new database, where's the money coming from and how much would
[7:24:34] it cost? And is there a timeline as to when it would
[7:24:38] be created? With or without
[7:24:41] funds. I don't think we're just going to be finding it on
[7:24:46] growing on trees. Where would the money come from if this is
[7:24:49] a new database? Or if it's not a new database -- what would
[7:24:54] that cost if it's an extension, how much for the
[7:24:57] extension or the enlargement of the current database cost?
[7:25:01] That's a series of questions. I don't know who to ask them
[7:25:06] to exactly. I don't know if the superintendent would be
[7:25:08] best or if Chair Kerry has some secret stash of money
[7:25:14] that he's proposing to use for
[7:25:16] the database. Anybody who has an idea of where that money would come from? And I want to
[7:25:22] know is this supposed to be a new database?
[7:25:25] >> You asked a series of questions.
[7:25:28] >> Let's maybe start with new.
>> Start with Joe first and if it's new then yeah, we need to answer that. If it's existing
[7:25:34] it will still cost money. I didn't catch all the
[7:25:37] questions. Good luck to you.
[7:25:41] >> That's why the stuff -- >>
[7:25:44] Thank you Chair. If I understood board member Lear correctly, I think seven
[7:25:49] clearly articulates that this
[7:25:52] system would be limited to issues of revocation and
[7:25:55] suspension. The current system would be unaffected by this and this board could decide to
[7:26:01] keep it, to change it. And the discretion whether a new
[7:26:04] database has to be built or amendments or changes to the
[7:26:09] existing one -- that's at the discretion of the
[7:26:12] Superintendent. And her decision making process.
[7:26:16] Nothing in here requires a newer separate system. But the
[7:26:21] cost is already being borne.
[7:26:24] And that cost is borne by the fact that right now when
[7:26:28] someone requests a grammar request or information request about information in the system, that they're already
[7:26:34] entitled to, they are having
[7:26:36] to pay thousands of dollars to
[7:26:40] get these requests that they requested because our system
[7:26:44] simply cannot spit it out. Our system is so disjointed that
[7:26:49] our filing system is literally
[7:26:51] a filing system. Paper files where we are telling the
[7:26:56] public we'll charge you X amount of dollars of hours to go back and search and pull
[7:27:01] this information. There already is a cost and that
[7:27:05] cost is to public trust, to public transparency, and staff
[7:27:10] put together
[7:27:17] -- they called it an executive memorandum. That's a fancy term but I want to know what's
[7:27:21] happening to our kids in public school? The trend line
[7:27:24] is clear. They're leaving. Then I said well, why? Is it
[7:27:29] just demographics? Is it just this demographic cliff people
[7:27:33] talk about? The answer is no. I think one of the big factors
[7:27:37] is this continual erosion of
[7:27:40] trust that they just don't feel they get the information
[7:27:45] they need. They feel there's this opaqueness to where they
[7:27:49] send their kids for six, 8 or
[7:27:51] 10 hours. And this system is designed or the hope is that
[7:27:56] it allows more transparency into the system. When we talk
[7:27:59] about cost, I think we make a mistake if we just look at this as a dollar cost. There's
[7:28:05] a real cost and that is
[7:28:07] parents and students leaving
[7:28:11] public education. Thank you.
 >> I still didn't get my answer about where the money's
[7:28:17] going to come from. Okay, I
[7:28:21] will let Sarah follow up.
[7:28:24] >> Member Reale, you are next.
[7:28:35] Them I believe in
[7:28:36] transparency. I work often in
[7:28:39] systems and databases and understanding also state resources. And the resources
[7:28:46] we have to create these really
[7:28:48] -- you can go look up things
[7:28:50] on private companies, private companies have made. And you're like wow, why can't we
[7:28:56] do this for our application or all these different things? It's like they have tons of
[7:29:00] money to put into making things. More like TurboTax and
[7:29:05] less like a college
[7:29:07] application in the system. So although this is a great idea,
[7:29:12] and I think -- in my opinion,
[7:29:16] I think it's not needed. But I wouldn't hate it if it
[7:29:20] existed. I just think we spent
[7:29:24] hours and hours last year during the legislative session being asked to make cuts. We
[7:29:30] spent hours at our board
[7:29:32] retreat talking about what to do when we are faced with suggestion of other budget
[7:29:38] cuts. This is not at all on my
[7:29:41] priority list. This is something that's accessible
[7:29:44] and available. And I would love to see the analytics of how many people outside of
[7:29:49] board members go in search of this database. I don't think
[7:29:53] it's very high but I'm against this motion because I think it's unnecessary considering
[7:29:58] all of the huge things that we
[7:30:00] need to tackle as a board and all the priorities we need to be spending our dollars on considering the lack of
[7:30:06] funding we are getting. I'm
[7:30:09] against this purely based on resources, dollars and the
[7:30:14] necessity. It seems unnecessary at this time. And also there is a demographic
[7:30:18] cliff. I research it all the time in higher education.
[7:30:22] There is a cliff. People are having less babies. There's a
[7:30:27] reason there's a change in population. We talk about it
[7:30:30] all the time. There's going to be a shortage of students going into higher education
[7:30:34] and a shortage of students going into K through 12 because people are having less
[7:30:38] kids. That's a fact that's out there. I want to make sure I
[7:30:42] clear that up. Sorry, to
[7:30:44] finish -- I'm not sure what the process would be to create this. I know during the
[7:30:50] legislative session we were asked to create a more robust
[7:30:53] site. It was a huge project.
[7:30:56] We estimated it was like $300,000 to create that site just to show what we are
[7:31:03] voting on in our meetings.
[7:31:05] With all the things we already have and pay for within the systems, with uploading videos
[7:31:11] and all those things. So from your perspective, what would
[7:31:15] that process look like to create this site, the dollars
[7:31:19] that we would need and the staff that we would need to be able to maintain a site like
[7:31:23] this?
[7:31:33] >> So I think we have a number
[7:31:33] of things in play here. Number one, we already have some
[7:31:38] information, quite a bit of information as was noted,
[7:31:42] available on cactus, which you
[7:31:46] can get to usually within two
[7:31:49] clicks -- it's not hard. You can Google fairly easily and
[7:31:54] get to our educator lookup
[7:31:56] tool. So there is that baseline. However, we also
[7:32:02] have USIMS in production. I
[7:32:07] don't know about putting something on the spot. I don't
[7:32:11] know director if you would be willing to come on up. I don't
[7:32:14] know -- do you have on the
[7:32:20] spot encyclopedic knowledge of the educator lookup aspect of
[7:32:29] USIMS? If you don't that's
[7:32:30] fine. I'm scanning the room and you are the best
[7:32:33] candidate. >> (inaudible)
[7:32:40] >> Thank you. Jared, director
[7:32:42] -- yes. We're building that
[7:32:44] into USIMS. The challenge as far as cost and time is this
[7:32:50] last legislative session we have 26 new bills that have to
[7:32:55] be built into our legacy
[7:32:57] systems and then rebuilt into
[7:33:02] USIMS. When we first sculpt it it didn't include all these new things. There's a backlog
[7:33:07] of items that need to be done. So we don't currently collect
[7:33:10] from my understanding -- came in late -- the data being
[7:33:14] requested in cactus or USIMS. That would have to be built
[7:33:19] out.
 >> I appreciate that answer and thanks for on the spot.
[7:33:23] The other piece I wanted to mention is as part of the
[7:33:27] audit that you all
[7:33:28] instructed internal audit to do, they are creating some
[7:33:35] databases. As I sit here and
[7:33:38] listen to you talk, we have a foundation that already exists
[7:33:44] -- but you are interested in
[7:33:45] items adding items. We have an audit
[7:33:50] that is digitally compiling
[7:33:53] information happening. We also
[7:33:56] have USIMS, which we may have to look at that scope. There
[7:34:02] might be some issues there. So my point is we've got a number
[7:34:07] of things that we could bring together and get it
[7:34:10] accomplished so it wouldn't be
[7:34:12] a ground Zero project but it
[7:34:16] does have some coordination that would need
[7:34:22] to be considered. You know that transparency to me is
[7:34:26] absolutely critical. This is
[7:34:30] something that I -- that fits
[7:34:34] in that scope. But it's not
[7:34:38] something where -- where you
[7:34:41] think of the TV show where the woman -- wiggled her nose and
[7:34:47] all of a sudden -- bewitched -- and all of a sudden it just
[7:34:50] appears? It would take some
[7:34:53] coordination and some time to get what we have currently
[7:34:58] move -- move the water to the end of the road so to speak.
[7:35:03] We could look at it through
[7:35:05] usms, databases -- we can use what we already have and put
[7:35:11] that together. It would not
[7:35:13] require a brand new from
[7:35:17] scratch -- but it would require time in order to get
[7:35:22] there. I don't know if that's helpful or more confusing. But yes.
[7:35:29] >> Go ahead.
[7:35:32] >> To clarify, this would be something in the queue of a
[7:35:36] long list of other items in the queue that we need to
[7:35:38] build. I don't know how that works. Like prioritizing at.
[7:35:44] If we put it in the queue it's something that over things
[7:35:48] that are -- the state is
[7:35:50] asking us for -- I worked on that's I s task force and the
[7:35:56] list is very long and it takes a long time, especially when you're working on in-house
[7:35:59] systems. I guess more to the
[7:36:03] point, if you don't feel like we would need another FTE to
[7:36:09] manage this, I'm not prepared to -- >> I'm not prepared to
[7:36:12] answer the question. That's a
[7:36:13] loaded question.
[7:36:16] My point is exactly that. It may not require as much money
[7:36:23] at the beginning system but it's going to require some
[7:36:27] time. And taking into consideration the legislative
[7:36:32] mandates versus -- and the
[7:36:35] prioritization. I am just making the point that I am not
[7:36:40] Samantha off of bewitched. Isn't that her name? I'm not
[7:36:44] Samantha. We would have to put
[7:36:46] it into
[7:36:49] kind of a project scope -- >> We don't collect the data as
[7:36:55] mentioned before.
[7:36:58] >> Not necessarily.
 >> That's why the audit is so
[7:37:02] critical, because it may be -- that was something that the
[7:37:08] audit will answer for you. I
[7:37:10] don't know. The audit is not
[7:37:13] out yet. We may have it.
[7:37:18] >> My Tldr would be this is not something I would prioritize on this time based
[7:37:23] on all the other work and priorities and the looming
[7:37:26] systems and data projects that we have.
[7:37:32] >> Vice Chair Wood?
[7:37:35] >> I want to comment, for the public's purposes, if you go to the parent portal you can
[7:37:40] click on Educator Lookup and
[7:37:42] click on put in an educator and it will come up. It is within two clicks off of our
[7:37:47] parent portal. I put in a name
[7:37:50] of a person we went through just in our last executive session last month and there
[7:37:56] it says educator has been reprimanded by the state Board
[7:37:59] of Education. For that, not everything there -- but given
[7:38:03] that this may be a long process if this is to pass,
[7:38:06] the public can do a lot of
[7:38:10] that already in two clicks from our parent portal.
[7:38:16] >> Chair Bollinger?
[7:38:19] >> Thank you Chair. When this
[7:38:22] discussion item came to licensing, we had several
[7:38:26] drafts to consider. We talked about how we are in the middle
[7:38:30] of two audits, so major changes to process, collection of things, maybe out of
[7:38:35] context -- or maybe recommendations coming from the audit. I alluded to the
[7:38:40] fact that it feels like sometimes patching holes in a
[7:38:42] wall instead of if we need a whole new foundation, maybe we need to do that. I'm not
[7:38:47] necessarily opposed to -- Vice
[7:38:50] Chair woods point. There is a database that people can look
[7:38:55] up some of this information. I look it up all the time. It's
[7:38:59] my day job to look at licenses and see if people are in reprimand. I can get that
[7:39:03] information so quickly and see what their endorsements are.
[7:39:06] It's very helpful. But my question would be, if I may
[7:39:10] share through you to maybe Member Davis, can you help us
[7:39:15] understand on a database that you're working on -- I don't
[7:39:19] want to duplicate efforts or have three different databases going on. I want to make sure
[7:39:24] that we are streamlining things. Can you help us
[7:39:27] understand as part of the
[7:39:28] audit how this might apply?
[7:39:39] >> So Debbie Davis, chief
[7:39:39] audit executive for the board. What we're attempting are what
[7:39:42] I have staff working on actually for a month or so is we are building a database and
[7:39:48] when I say that, it's a massive spreadsheet we've
[7:39:50] identified a number of data points well beyond what this conversation is talking about.
[7:39:56] That's so we can analyze those areas the board has requested
[7:39:59] for this audit. It would pick
[7:40:03] up the items listed here. Probably what would happen or
[7:40:06] what could happen depending on the outcome of what we're able
[7:40:09] to do is to put this -- or grabbing from a lot of different sources. It's not
[7:40:15] like there's one place currently that we are aware of any way that you can go and
[7:40:19] just grab all this information, which is why we are putting this together so
[7:40:24] we can do the analysis of the
[7:40:25] board has requested. So maybe the idea is that once we get put that together and
[7:40:31] depending on what the outcome of that is and how reliable
[7:40:35] the data is, then that could be potentially something we
[7:40:39] could use with our IT group and our policy group and say
[7:40:42] okay, now that we have this and it's structured in a spreadsheet, it could be
[7:40:47] something that could maybe be uploaded or interfaced that
[7:40:50] would give us quite a running start on hey come on we have all these things together.
[7:40:56] Maybe we could just pay out or look up to what we already
[7:40:59] have with USIMS or cactus. Did
[7:41:04] that address your question?
[7:41:06] >> Yes. Thank you. That's so helpful and to your point of
[7:41:11] -- you're doing a lot of work to put that together. It may be something that can be turned in and streamlined and
[7:41:15] there may be information there that we look at and say oh, we'd want to add that to to a
[7:41:20] public domain. For me, this motion right now feels
[7:41:23] premature. I would prefer to wait until we have our audits
[7:41:26] done so we can have a big picture of the things that need to change and the major
[7:41:30] things to change with UPPAC instead of having unintended
[7:41:35] consequences potentially of already overburdening the things that are happening in
[7:41:40] the agency with all the changes. Thank you for that
[7:41:42] feedback. I would speak against this motion at this time.
[7:41:48] >> The screen says we're ready
[7:41:49] to vote. Boy, I like that. We've got a couple more
[7:41:54] lights. We'll keep going. I've got Member Earl. Go ahead. Do
[7:41:59] you want me to vote first?
[7:42:02] >> I guess because -- someone helped me. Are there two
[7:42:08] different files? Is a lookup item what you are referencing
[7:42:12] or is there a different way to
[7:42:13] look up an educator? Is the educator lookup -- trying to understand if we already have
[7:42:19] two systems out there or if we have one system the other one
[7:42:23] draws from? Can someone answer
[7:42:25] that? Does the cactus -- okay.
[7:42:31] I just wanted to make sure I
[7:42:34] was talking -- okay. We're using two different things and I want to make sure -- because
[7:42:40] I had an educator contact me this spring because there was
[7:42:43] a discipline item -- what I'm
[7:42:46] saying is -- I guess I'm not looking at this as that complicated. To me most of
[7:42:53] this is already done. We would
[7:42:57] have to do or start adding as
[7:43:00] we went. I don't know if we can put a time frame on this
[7:43:04] by summer of next year. I just
[7:43:07] don't see -- even the brief description, when we look at our backup for these
[7:43:12] disciplinary things, it gives three sentences that
[7:43:15] highlights -- this isn't complicated. We don't have to
[7:43:18] go back. I can understand stretching it out if there's not going to be staffing right
[7:43:25] now. But I actually agree with this because it's enough
[7:43:28] context -- without enough context people sometimes are
[7:43:32] not sure is that just a flag on the file. What happened? And they have to go through
[7:43:36] the process of this. I just know with the educator come
[7:43:41] they contacted me, they were
[7:43:43] looking for a job outside of the state. That person didn't
[7:43:48] want -- they were just like -- they looked at the flag and didn't look at the rest of it
[7:43:53] or the coloring. It didn't
[7:43:56] even do a dive into it. It prohibited even a movement
[7:44:00] forward. I think there's some benefits. I just don't look at
[7:44:05] it as that much of a
[7:44:07] hindrance. There may be a cost piece and I would say we would
[7:44:11] maybe want to -- maybe it's a date thing that we are working on this over the next year and
[7:44:17] a half. I don't know. That is my opinion.
[7:44:21] >> Member Davis?
 >> I have a more substantive
[7:44:26] issue but a quick question,
[7:44:27] what is if applicable? Why would the name of the
[7:44:32] school -- but it would still
[7:44:36] be a teacher at a school.
 >> Incident may not have happened. Incident didn't
[7:44:42] occur in school.
[7:44:45] >> I just think that can get confusing.
[7:44:49] I would like to amend the
[7:44:52] amendment that we take off E. And if I get a second I would
[7:44:57] like to speak to the motion.
[7:45:00] >> What's your amendment to
[7:45:02] remove -- >> To st for a
[7:45:12] second second
[7:45:20] >> If you look at it currently, you can look up the
[7:45:21] name of the educator what the disciplinary action
[7:45:27] was and if it was a suspension
[7:45:29] or a reprimand. For additional information you can click on this to request
[7:45:35] the grammar records. Well that could incur some
[7:45:40] cost to the person looking it
[7:45:42] up, it's a holistic view of the situation where both sides
[7:45:47] represent themselves. And that
[7:45:50] seems to be much safer for
[7:45:56] parents because when we just
[7:45:58] put a few sentence summary, we may underestimate the real
[7:46:04] extent of what was going on.
[7:46:06] On the flip side, fair to the educator, because we may
[7:46:11] overestimate what was going on. The way it is currently,
[7:46:16] they can click on receiving additional information and get
[7:46:20] all that information from both sides and get a holistic look
[7:46:24] of what the real situation is going on. I say real loosely
[7:46:28] because I think we make up some mistakes. That also
[7:46:32] concerns me of putting a descriptor on there. But those
[7:46:37] really -- gosh, I'm considering putting my child in this class. I want to know
[7:46:41] more. I am willing to pay a
[7:46:45] little bit of money to get a holistic assessment instead of
[7:46:49] just a few lines that may
[7:46:51] underestimate the safety concern or overestimate the
[7:46:56] accusation.
[7:47:00] What money?
[7:47:06] I am saying -- I'm just saying
[7:47:09] we should not put a description -- it's already in
[7:47:12] the system. There's already a lien in the system. If you look it up they can click on
[7:47:16] to get those records. They can
[7:47:23] get E. It says for additional
[7:47:25] information you can get that, which to me feels like a
[7:47:29] better representation, a very
[7:47:32] short summary. On both sides of the scale.
[7:47:42] >> To the motion -- because
[7:47:44] I've got -- first off, the motion to amend is to strike
[7:47:51] E. I have Boggess, Green and Kerry. To the other motion
[7:47:54] -- I'm looking for those speaking to this motion.
[7:47:57] Member Kerry, go ahead.
 >> Thank you Chair. Board
[7:48:01] member Davis, it's really -- this was a tough one because with that 1 or 2
[7:48:06] sentence summary, you don't want to jade the viewer and
[7:48:10] reading that summary -- and making all sorts of
[7:48:13] conclusions from it. As I looked at what the lawyers do and what the doctors do and what the accountants do and
[7:48:19] what the plumbers do, they all
[7:48:21] provide that summary. The board actually goes above and
[7:48:26] beyond by including that link that says if you want
[7:48:30] additional information, click
[7:48:31] here. And my concern is that -- I'm not necessarily
[7:48:38] opposed. But I don't think it's necessary because you could have both. You could
[7:48:43] have the 1 or 2 sentence
[7:48:44] summary. And the click here. But I do think it's important
[7:48:50] for people that, that they're
[7:48:53] able to see what took place, read that 1 or 2 sentence summary, and take one
[7:48:59] additional information from there, click the button and make the request. One thing
[7:49:04] we're finding out that I've heard repeatedly is that the
[7:49:07] number of requests that we're seeking as an agency continues
[7:49:11] to grow. And that we are continuing double Dutch you want to talk about a staffing
[7:49:16] issue, no matter how many people we throw at it, the
[7:49:20] number keeps going up. I look at that almost like a courtesy
[7:49:25] that we provide. I'm glad we
[7:49:26] do. It says click here. Doctors don't do it, lawyers don't do it and accountants.
[7:49:32] Plumbers may do it but -- we
[7:49:34] make it easy. We have that button. I'm not saying take that away. But by providing
[7:49:41] that summary, you may answer
[7:49:44] questions where you know what? I don't have to go further.
[7:49:47] This satisfies my search. We're actually getting saving
[7:49:51] staff time, we're saving that effort. I'm not saying remove that button but rather I think
[7:49:57] this will help ameliorate some
[7:50:00] double dashed number of requests we're receiving as an agency. I think your concern
[7:50:05] is legitimate that people read that summary and walk away thinking I know everything I
[7:50:09] need to know about this.
 >> Thank you Chair.
[7:50:13] >> As you know, when something
[7:50:15] is mentioned it gets discussed on the side
[7:50:21] sometimes. One thing mentioned
[7:50:22] earlier was R277-312. If we could come up we've got staff
[7:50:29] ready to pull up 312 where
[7:50:35] this probably belongs. Is this
[7:50:37] -- and if it doesn't, if we need to completely new system,
[7:50:41] that's up for discussion. Is
[7:50:43] this it right here? USIMS? Scroll down to seven if we
[7:50:49] could. Section seven? What are you looking at? Section seven.
[7:50:54] Licensing records. Okay okay. All the way to the bottom I'm
[7:51:02] hearing. Subsection five,
[7:51:04] right there. Six. I am getting from Leann and you are getting
[7:51:10] from me and --
[7:51:14] so you are saying -- let's see
[7:51:18] six in its entirety please. The Superintendent shall
[7:51:23] provide an online licensing database where the general public may access the
[7:51:26] information classified as public in subsection five.
[7:51:29] What I'm suggesting here, Member Kerry, is instead of
[7:51:34] -- we are arguing over this in 211. Oh we don't think it
[7:51:38] should be in 211. It's already in 312. There's some people
[7:51:43] saying hey come on let's send this back to committee and some people say no, let's take
[7:51:47] care of it here and some people saying it doesn't belong here. This is out of
[7:51:51] order. Whether it is or is not
[7:51:54] -- I do think that this 312
[7:51:56] should be brought back with three or more board members -- it sounds like there's a handful of us who would say
[7:52:04] yeah, let's address this but
[7:52:05] let's address it here -- put 312 on a committee and look
[7:52:10] over those issues here. I'm going to look to Member Kerry
[7:52:15] as he's the one who made a motion and I'm the one trying
[7:52:19] to pull it right now. Go ahead, Member Kerry.
[7:52:24] >> Chair thank you. This is something staff raised with me
[7:52:27] come with this 312 issue. And I read 312 exactly as number
[7:52:32] six says. The Superintendent shall provide an online
[7:52:36] licensing database. This is
[7:52:40] not an online licensing database. This is a
[7:52:44] disciplinary database like other professions have. When
[7:52:48] you look at the rule 211, 211
[7:52:52] specifically says, final
[7:52:54] disciplinary actions. This is not which one of these is not
[7:53:01] like the other. 312 addresses
[7:53:03] a licensing database and what
[7:53:07] we've tried to do is we have tried -- I was going to use
[7:53:13] -- it almost slipped out, the
[7:53:18] B word-- But we're trying to say we have
[7:53:21] this licensing database and let's make it a disciplinary
[7:53:25] database. That's what we went
[7:53:27] along with. Really what we need is just like the other professions a disciplinary
[7:53:32] database. Will it draw from the licensing database?
[7:53:36] Absolutely. As someone said, about 90% of the information
[7:53:40] in the disciplinary database is in the licensing database.
[7:53:45] It's not searchable by LEA.
[7:53:48] It's not searchable by school. If I want to know this teacher commented the commit an
[7:53:54] offense, I can look it up by name. If I want to see this
[7:53:57] school or this LEA, I can't do
[7:54:02] it. That's why I think this
[7:54:04] disciplinary database is
[7:54:06] different and it's a part. 
 >> That answers that question.
[7:54:14] It is a separate database. Appreciate that. I want to
[7:54:18] remember that -- recall that
[7:54:21] 211 is titled Utah Professional Practices
[7:54:24] Advisory Commission, rules and procedures. Notification to educators, complaints and
[7:54:31] Disciplinary actions. I am not
[7:54:34] trying to skirt around this. I want to make sure we do this right. What's going to happen
[7:54:38] is we'll have a lot of Upac stuff come before us and inevitably we'll have to have
[7:54:42] the AAGs look at this in our policy team and say let's
[7:54:47] clean this up so we don't have
[7:54:48] rules and wording in different places that shouldn't belong there. I'm trying to tackle
[7:54:54] this. We can continue on with
[7:54:58] this discussion in 211. I'd love to get it in the right
[7:55:01] place. And I guess that's all I'm looking at here is does
[7:55:06] this belong here? Joe, go ahead. I know you and I are
[7:55:11] having a back and forth here.
 >> Look, if the chair has
[7:55:15] concerns, I am happy
[7:55:20] -- I don't know procedurally how to do this. I'm happy to
[7:55:23] send -- is it rule 312? I'm
[7:55:27] happy to send or support the motion to send 312 and this
[7:55:31] matter to -- in the month of September. I'm happy to
[7:55:36] entertain that. My fear is
[7:55:38] that if we let this go, this
[7:55:41] pops up in the year 2037. So I
[7:55:46] think if we can start getting
[7:55:49] accountability for these LEAs, these schools, and allowing
[7:55:55] people to see -- we focus on the conduct of the teacher and I think that's important but
[7:56:00] for them to shoulder the weight -- which a lot of times
[7:56:04] you can put on administration just for bad training and bad
[7:56:07] systems. You will bring that transparency to life with this system and that's why I think
[7:56:12] it's important. Again, if you're suggesting we're going
[7:56:17] to let this go but you just have to get board members, but
[7:56:20] my preference would be to have a motion to remand us back to law and licensing in September
[7:56:25] with 312 for that discussion.
[7:56:28] >> Again I'm not trying to
[7:56:31] -- the work has to be done.
[7:56:34] I'm looking at you -- I could be wrong and ask the wrong
[7:56:41] staff member. You are fine.
[7:56:44] Keep talking. I just want to make sure that Ben is the
[7:56:49] right person to say -- you're looking at a separate database. 312 still the right
[7:56:54] place to do it or do we need to find the right place?
[7:56:58] >> I would put this in 312.
[7:57:01] >> What is the title of 312?
[7:57:04] >> Online licensure.
 >> Online Educator licensure.
 >> And that fits appropriately
[7:57:11] in there?
[7:57:13] I do think it needs to be in the correct place. I think it needs -- we'll have a lot of
[7:57:22] discussion. We have lights that are still -- I do have a
[7:57:27] light on. I've got some
[7:57:28] questions as well. I want to make sure that this gets done properly. If we're going to
[7:57:35] say okay, this will be a cost -- honestly if this was the
[7:57:38] right thing to do, sometimes
[7:57:41] cost -- that's not my issue. We're not going to do it
[7:57:46] because it's the right thing to do but it costs money.
[7:57:49] That's the other issue. Let's make sure that we do this
[7:57:53] correctly so that it saves time and energy and it gets done right as we go forward
[7:57:59] with this. So I think I can interrupt with a motion to
[7:58:05] postpone -- how does that work? We are changing this to
[7:58:14] -- >> (inaudible)
[7:58:15] maybe I'm back up plan -- >> I need to put this in -- did you
[7:58:19] have a motion? We need to put
[7:58:21] this in -- >> (inaudible)
 >> That would be the motion and again, I don't want
[7:58:27] anybody to say oh, Matt is trying to dodge this. I'm not.
[7:58:32] I do want to do this right. So
[7:58:34] the motion would be that -- that the above motion
[7:58:41] -- it wouldn't be the rule. It would just be this motion
[7:58:45] -- okay.
[7:58:47] >> Would it be coupled with 312?
[7:58:57] >> (laughs)
[7:59:07] >> I would like to bring it back in September if we could.
[7:59:09] I know as soon as possible but I don't want to -- to talk about money I don't want to
[7:59:13] spend money on another meeting
[7:59:16] in between meetings. Yeah. 
 >> I have a question related --
[7:59:28] [inaudible conversation]
[7:59:31] >> Okay. Hold on. I have taken some liberties here. You have
[7:59:35] a question to Mr. Member Davis motion which I'm about to get
[7:59:38] rid of. What's the relevance of the question? Can you just
[7:59:42] walk over and ask. I don't want to be rude here but I'm
[7:59:45] trying to move us along here.
[7:59:48] >> Yeah. Go ahead. Vice Chair Wood.
[7:59:54] >> This is related to Member Davis motion before Member
[7:59:59] Hymas gets rid of it. I am
[8:00:01] wondering, can staff report to me how much it costs for a
[8:00:07] single grammar report for a
[8:00:09] single educator?
[8:00:22] >> Go ahead.
 >> Records officer, the answer
[8:00:24] is nothing. For a single
[8:00:26] grandma to file.
[8:00:30] >> Okay. I'm going to put a motion before the board. I move that the language in the
[8:00:35] motion above, for clarity -- I move that the language in
[8:00:40] Member motion, most recent
[8:00:43] motion, be sent to law and licensing committee to be considered with the revision
[8:00:48] of R277-312 in September
[8:00:53] Committee. There's a second. I'm not going to speak to it
[8:00:57] but I think we know where this is going because I've spoken to it long before I made a
[8:01:01] motion. I've got Member Boggess and Davis to this
[8:01:05] motion.
 >> I support the motion.
[8:01:08] >> Member Davis? To this motion?
 >> I support this motion and I'd like to ask the committee
[8:01:13] when they go back to work, if they do want to move forward
[8:01:16] with the summary of reason why
[8:01:19] the person
[8:01:25] (inaudible) I wonder if the committee can work on a list
[8:01:28] of ten categorical areas -- just looking up some of these come up for example I
[8:01:33] looked up I see and one violation was pharmacy
[8:01:36] violation. We looked up a plumber and it was unlicensed
[8:01:41] practice. We looked up someone else -- I can't remember
[8:01:45] -- falsification of application. It was like there's this list of
[8:01:49] categories. So you know as a parent you could say alcohol
[8:01:53] related. Drug related.
[8:01:56] Domestic violence. Student interaction. Grooming. However you want to make the
[8:02:02] categories. It takes out the subjectivity of writing a
[8:02:06] summary out of it so that we
[8:02:09] don't risk this underestimation or overestimation and the parent
[8:02:15] can say okay, that is a
[8:02:17] category. I want to grandma because it's -- or I don't.
[8:02:24] >> We cannot be sued by inaccuracies as well. The
[8:02:28] longer it is -- >> I really
[8:02:30] worry for both people looking and the people being looked at with the summary.
[8:02:36] >> Okay. The motion is before us and that's that the
[8:02:40] language in Member Kerry motion above be sent to the licensing committee to be
[8:02:44] considered of the revision of R2 77-312 in September. Let's
[8:02:48] vote.
[8:03:06] That passes unanimously. This
[8:03:10] brings us to an underlying motion which is before us and
[8:03:13] that's that the board approve
[8:03:16] R277-211, Utah Professional Practices advisory Committee rules and procedure,
[8:03:21] notification to educators and complaints -- as amended in
[8:03:25] second and final reading.
[8:03:27] Let's go ahead and vote.
[8:03:57] That passes unanimously.
[8:04:06] Okay. We just said we need a
[8:04:13] three minute break. She's not waiting either. She's gone. Let's take a three minute
[8:04:20] break if we could.
[8:12:17] All right board members.
[8:12:29] Okay. Let's go ahead and get
[8:12:33] back at it. We just finished agenda item 7.9 on licensing
[8:12:39] report out. So we are now turning time back to Chair
[8:12:43] Kerry.
[8:12:45] >> Thank you Chair. Item 7.1 come there's no action for the
[8:12:49] board. Item 7.11 -- nope, we just did this so let's not do that
[8:12:56] again. This is item 7.12, sensitive materials timeline
[8:13:02] update. Just for the board,
[8:13:06] this is -- this matter originated in our Standards
[8:13:10] and Assessment Committee. Procedurally in order for it to hit this board meeting,
[8:13:15] this particular aspect was sent to law and licensing,
[8:13:19] which we addressed to make sure it was here in our August
[8:13:25] board meeting. The motion for the board with that background
[8:13:29] is that the board -- excuse me
[8:13:36] -- that the board adopt the
[8:13:38] 2026 timeline policy draft one on the second and final
[8:13:44] reading and appropriate $60,000 from the board
[8:13:49] discretionary funds for implementation. Thank you Chair.
[8:13:53] >> So the motion that came from committee and is before
[8:13:56] us now is that the board adopt the 2026 timeline policy draft
[8:14:01] one on second and final reading and appropriate
[8:14:05] $60,000 from board discretionary funds for
[8:14:08] implementation. Vice Chair Bollinger.
[8:14:12] >> Thank you Chair. We did have a great discussion about
[8:14:17] this and appreciate Member Green from attending the committee meeting to help us
[8:14:23] understand the purpose of
[8:14:24] this. I do support this idea. My only concern or one of the concerns I have is the
[8:14:30] timeline currently on the
[8:14:34] actual monitoring timeline. If you scroll down to the bottom
[8:14:38] on the summary table it has phase one as starting June 8th
[8:14:41] and ending August 3rd. Today
[8:14:44] is August 6th. So my question is if we pass this draft as
[8:14:51] is, is staff still going to be held accountable for doing all
[8:14:56] these steps and being done by December or does -- or is
[8:14:59] there flexibility -- I'm really just concerned about
[8:15:03] maybe we are setting staff up for something that is not
[8:15:07] reasonable. I don't know if a staff member can help us understand the timeline. Is it
[8:15:13] more of the actual 26 week
[8:15:16] timeline that we need or is it
[8:15:18] the deadline?
[8:15:28] >> Welcome back.
[8:15:28] >> Thank you. Media specialist of Teaching and Learning. The
[8:15:33] timeline would need to be adjusted, just given that we
[8:15:37] discussed this originally in June. So we don't have that portion that should have been
[8:15:41] done by August 3rd is not completed. So we would need to
[8:15:46] move it forward from this date.
[8:15:55] >> So we would need to just amend so that everything would
[8:15:59] shift. Is that what I'm understanding?
[8:16:01] >> Correct. This is the committee's baby.
[8:16:06] >> Yes. I'll make an
[8:16:07] amendment. Somebody that's brilliant at least that's
[8:16:13] helping type this up, to push the timeline -- the calendar
[8:16:18] window -- back starting today.
[8:16:24] Monday.
[8:17:01] >> So the motion to amend is that the timeline be adjusted
[8:17:04] proportionally with Monday,
[8:17:07] August 8th, 2026 start date. That was the motion that Vice
[8:17:13] Chair Bollinger made and it's been seconded. Is that right?
[8:17:16] Was that you? Can you speak to that?
 >> Thank you. I want to make
[8:17:20] sure that we provide ample time for our staff to actually
[8:17:24] follow the proposal. A lot of time and energy was spent
[8:17:29] figuring out each of these spaces. I want to make sure you have the time that you
[8:17:33] need to do this correctly. If
[8:17:37] we're going to invest $60,000, I want to make sure we can do
[8:17:40] it right. Thank you.
 >> Member Reale?
[8:17:46] >> Thank you. I have a question about
[8:17:51] -- sensitive material is like
[8:17:53] one of the areas of our schools that is the most
[8:17:57] regulated. Lots of rules come
[8:18:00] lots of laws, lots of things
[8:18:05] -- or good reason, but
[8:18:09] I -- after going to the library policy come a lot of the concerns that I got from
[8:18:15] the librarians were just the amount of work that a lot of these things take. I always
[8:18:20] think of the red tape as that's time they're not spending with our students
[8:18:24] helping them learn. I'm trying to understand if this is going
[8:18:28] to be -- I know this is focused more on vendors and I
[8:18:31] know our librarians do a great
[8:18:33] job of making sure that the vendors -- I have issues with vendors all the time. I know
[8:18:40] in this area -- I'm just wondering if we foresee any
[8:18:44] sort of burden or extra time and energy that would be needed to be placed on our
[8:18:49] librarians with all the other regulations we already have
[8:18:53] within the library sensitive materials?
[8:18:55] Yeah, I -- I read it. We
[8:19:01] discussed in committee and in standards originally. Have we
[8:19:06] seen -- if we see this being
[8:19:09] more of a large task than -- it seems easy but I'm
[8:19:14] worried about the time and energy it will take. I'm not
[8:19:18] sure if you have any information on that or if you
[8:19:21] have any perspective on -- or
[8:19:24] the LEAs.
[8:19:33] >> So yes, this is going to
[8:19:33] take a significant amount of time. One of the things I was thinking about as I created
[8:19:38] the timeline was to limit the amount of time that the
[8:19:42] librarians themselves would have to participate in the
[8:19:46] survey and hoping that a lot of this could come from the
[8:19:50] district themselves. It goes to the district and they'll probably have more of those
[8:19:55] records in the librarian Wood but there would be impact on
[8:19:59] both the librarian and the LEA a, particularly -- or at the
[8:20:03] district level, particularly because we do not have a
[8:20:06] district librarian in every district who can navigate
[8:20:11] these questions, where like --
[8:20:14] they have a district person. She can take that time to answer as many questions as
[8:20:21] she can without having to have
[8:20:24] the librarian do that.
 >> Having been on audits, I
[8:20:28] hear about when we start audits, oftentimes there's
[8:20:32] some LEAs that just don't have the resources to pull all the information they need or some
[8:20:37] like Davis, it's like we have five people that can do that.
[8:20:41] That was my concern.
 >> Thank you.
[8:20:45] >> I've got -- the motion here
[8:20:49] is we are talking about the timeline, so I know Sarah
[8:20:55] -- Sarah wasn't off base here.
[8:20:58] Okay. Timeline? Member Green? Timeline? Question on the
[8:21:06] timeline or is yours on the
[8:21:08] overall motion?
[8:21:11] To the timeline?
[8:21:20] Timeline? Okay okay. So the motion then
[8:21:28] is that the timeline be adjusted proportionally with a
[8:21:32] Monday, August 10th 2026 start
[8:21:34] date. Let's vote.
[8:21:48] [members voting]
[8:21:53] okay, that passes unanimously. Which brings us back to our
[8:22:01] underlying motion about the timeline policy. Right? As
[8:22:10] amended, draft one as amended.
[8:22:12] Member Green? Go ahead.
[8:22:21] >> Sorry, I would like the amendment to include the USB
[8:22:25] e-library review addendum
[8:22:27] revised.
[8:22:35] >> So the motion is to include
[8:22:36] the library materials -- what
[8:22:42] did you call it?
[8:22:43] USBE library review addendum revised under Green draft one.
[8:22:51] Is the last document listed.
[8:22:55] There's a memorandum and then there's also the -- review and I want to add the USDB library
[8:23:01] review.
 >> So the motion is to include
[8:23:05] the USBE library review
[8:23:08] addendum revised. Member Green
[8:23:11] draft one, to this -- >> Yeah,
[8:23:16] and I'll speak to it in a second.
 >> And there's a second to
[8:23:21] that. Speak to that.
 >>
[8:23:28] So I filed this for a really long time and I've already said a lot of words. I've
[8:23:30] already spoken in standards and assessment. Thanks for allowing me to come. This is
[8:23:35] more towards the Finance committee. I've just been
[8:23:39] -- I've been compiling a lot of information and viewing
[8:23:41] this review through the industry lens. Not through
[8:23:47] like the educational realm but this is more on the front
[8:23:50] line. I just have -- I'm going
[8:23:55] to read it briefly. It's just a tiny paragraph but I think -- I can get right to the
[8:23:59] point and move on. It's the memorandum there. The second
[8:24:03] paragraph which states, this -- excuse me, this survey
[8:24:08] -- it's just meant to do three
[8:24:09] things. That the outline is not yet fully due. The first
[8:24:16] is that it just translates the review's objectives into the
[8:24:20] industry's own working terms. I've said there's the --
[8:24:24] there's kind of the industry speak. There's the business
[8:24:27] language. My goal is it keeps veering off into the educational realm. We need to
[8:24:33] keep it in this other realm, which is why I've put in a lot
[8:24:37] of effort getting these specific questions. To help
[8:24:42] steer that. I'm just going to read that again. First it
[8:24:47] translates the review's objectives into the industry's
[8:24:49] own working terms. Approval plans, standing orders, opening day collections, shelf
[8:24:55] ready processing, cooperative contracts, curated selection
[8:24:59] lists and so forth. So the questions match how the -- are
[8:25:04] and can be answered. The second -- is that it follows
[8:25:08] the money in both directions
[8:25:14] .
[8:25:15] And what flows between LEAs, vendors and professional organizations in the form of
[8:25:21] DOS, conference, travel, incentives, grants and donated
[8:25:25] materials. And the third, it pairs nearly every question
[8:25:29] with verifiable record, so purchase orders, contracts,
[8:25:34] vendor manifest, training logs and so forth, so that the
[8:25:38] findings rest on documents rather than just recollection.
[8:25:42] So the questions -- I just pose them as deliberately
[8:25:47] neutral, factual, grounded in
[8:25:50] Utah's standards, and just simply asking what is bot,
[8:25:56] from whom, with whose money, which list and then check by
[8:26:01] the steps that are in place. I
[8:26:04] do want to just highlight also
[8:26:06] that the attached instrument and survey -- it is offered to strengthen the data collection
[8:26:13] and it's drafted for refinement and board
[8:26:17] discussion. It's not as the
[8:26:20] final form. It's just like that nice focused -- thank
[8:26:25] you.
[8:26:30] >> Yeah, Member Lear?
[8:26:36] >> I'm going to ask a really simple question that maybe should be obvious. I can't
[8:26:39] figure out, who is going to do
[8:26:42] this work in 160 LEAs? Who is assigned? Not every has a librarian. We've established
[8:26:51] that. Not every district
[8:26:56] -- not every district. Not
[8:26:58] every LEA has a librarian. I'm trying to figure out who would
[8:27:04] have this business information
[8:27:07] and be able to complete this survey -- who are you
[8:27:12] anticipating would be that person?
[8:27:19] >> Member Green? Go ahead.
 >> This was part of what we
[8:27:22] are working with -- may I use
[8:27:25] your name in reference? Building this out on --
[8:27:29] librarians have obviously had their part in procurement of
[8:27:35] library materials. There are qualities that are built into that. There are people that
[8:27:39] have to approve that at the district level if I'm understanding this correctly.
[8:27:42] There's contracts that are approved. There's the financial part. There actually
[8:27:47] is -- there are processes in
[8:27:51] place where people go through their lines of authority. So
[8:27:55] if a school has a library,
[8:27:58] these processes have already been utilized. How and who I
[8:28:05] might refer to -- for that answer. And maybe the work
[8:28:09] that she's been developing and
[8:28:10] how we are accessing LEAs that fit the guidelines.
 >> Can I clarify what I'm
[8:28:17] asking? Maybe it seems clear
[8:28:20] to you but -- I'm concerned that there are multiple people
[8:28:26] who are now -- some are going
[8:28:29] to have multiple people who need to fill out this survey or participate in filling out
[8:28:35] the survey and some are not going to have any information
[8:28:38] at all. Maybe they will claim they have no library
[8:28:41] materials. Help me with the
[8:28:46] vision of how an LEA would
[8:28:51] fill out this information.
[8:28:54] Maybe I'm not enough of a
[8:28:57] business person. Okay
 >> Thank you. The first thing
[8:29:05] I'll say is that -- at least
[8:29:09] in the timeline that I've
[8:29:11] proposed to the committee, we would not be sampling all the
[8:29:16] districts for everything. So it would be a random sample of certain districts for certain
[8:29:21] items. So phase two the supply chain and procurement would be 12 districts and three
[8:29:26] charters.
[8:29:29] When we get down to regulatory compliance and training that would be all 41 districts and charters depending on the
[8:29:35] information that we are looking for, every district
[8:29:39] responding to something -- and it may not be. The other thing
[8:29:44] I would add is that -- forgive me, I haven't had a chance to
[8:29:47] go through board member Green's survey document in
[8:29:52] good detail. But the way the timeline is set up there's
[8:29:56] three different phases. I anticipate that being broken
[8:29:59] down. It's possible different person is responding to three
[8:30:04] different phrases differently. It might be in a district that one person is responding to
[8:30:09] all three phases or questions.
[8:30:12] I had it broken down by phase one questions, phase two questions or phase three so
[8:30:18] they can go to the right individual and it might be the same person and it might not
[8:30:21] be the same. And then follow
[8:30:24] up if that's okay.
[8:30:42] >> At the request of -- >> So Emily then if it's to you,
[8:30:47] help me -- not so much heavy business
[8:30:52] -- what is it that we want to
[8:30:54] accomplish by gathering this pretty detailed survey
[8:31:01] information? What is it we are trying to accomplish?
[8:31:05] >> That's a great question. So
[8:31:08] the state of Utah, we have been through -- a few years here working through the
[8:31:14] sensitive materials law. We have developed the rule and
[8:31:17] now we have a year or two of data underneath our belt to. What we are seeing, the way
[8:31:23] I've phrased it and I'll phrase it again, we've been
[8:31:25] able to put a band on a hemorrhage as far as the type of novels and materials,
[8:31:31] pornographic novels have made it through -- solid Tribune
[8:31:35] had an article and in a way posing that -- these parents
[8:31:40] are the ones doing it. We have
[8:31:43] this legitimate argument that we want to protect our librarians. We want to protect
[8:31:48] children. We want parents to
[8:31:50] know that they have access to quality literature. All of these are very relevant
[8:31:56] arguments and concerns. This Band-Aid on the hemorrhage
[8:32:01] analogy that I make highlights -- and the fact that we've had
[8:32:06] a year using this rule -- highlights that there are still issues that exist on the
[8:32:10] front line. We've been able to address the tail end of this.
[8:32:15] We are highlighting that there are issues that still exist in
[8:32:17] the industry at large. My biggest fear is that we will continue to have legislation
[8:32:23] go through, addressing things that we don't understand. And right now I've asked these
[8:32:28] industry level questions. I
[8:32:31] have yet to be able to have a conversation with people that
[8:32:37] can answer that. We know there are trainings that take place
[8:32:40] organizations, sponsor -- they
[8:32:44] offer trainings. Again, in
[8:32:47] layman's terms, there is an industry that engages with public education. Their
[8:32:54] product is selling curriculums, novels,
[8:32:57] literature to supply our
[8:33:00] public education. So I believe it's very important that we
[8:33:05] understand that and that we don't keep setting up our
[8:33:10] librarians to fail, and that we don't keep allowing an
[8:33:14] industry to have unfettered
[8:33:17] access, to be supplying a product that goes against
[8:33:24] state law. At this point,
[8:33:27] federal law. And it really is highlighting something that
[8:33:31] exists and that has become a problem. The only way that you
[8:33:38] can work better towards that
[8:33:39] is understanding it. And understanding the front industry partnerships -- using
[8:33:46] the business language, the contracts and the funding
[8:33:49] avenues --
[8:33:54] I see it as being very helpful. And I'd like to also
[8:33:59] highlight that I really do
[8:34:02] -- we want them to be the professionals until we have a
[8:34:06] review. Then we promote them and we don't want them to -- because they don't know.
[8:34:12] They either are or they are not. If we decide there is a gap, and maybe they don't know
[8:34:16] this, the review itself will actually highlight ways we can
[8:34:20] fortify that. We can build out trainings. We can say hey,
[8:34:23] there actually is -- it's just time. It's time to have the conversation. We can build out
[8:34:29] those trainings from the USBE
[8:34:34] and everybody is in a much better place. There's a handful of reasons for this
[8:34:37] and I've highlighted -- I hope I've remembered the most
[8:34:40] important. Thanks. I guess I'm
[8:34:43] still a little unclear -- do I hear you saying you think that vendors are intentionally
[8:34:51] selling pornographic materials
[8:34:53] to schools?
[8:34:58] Is that what -- is that what you're saying?
[8:35:04] >> If we wanted to spin it politically, you could say we
[8:35:08] are putting our stake in the ground and yes, that's
[8:35:11] happening. What we want to understand is how vendors have
[8:35:17] access to public education.
[8:35:20] And we don't understand that
[8:35:23] relationship. I will highlight
[8:35:26] one thing though. In Utah, a new school -- a new school
[8:35:32] opened and the vendors have a pre curated list -- 2000 books
[8:35:39] or something -- what are your
[8:35:41] starter kit? Those books come. When queried about how many
[8:35:46] books reference American heritage, o, that's great. Go
[8:35:51] to the search. And there wasn't a book there. About
[8:35:56] American heritage. And what I realized at that point, this
[8:36:00] actually extends beyond say, let's say sensitive materials,
[8:36:05] it extends beyond pornographic novels. It extends beyond
[8:36:09] authors that work with publishers that work with vendors and distribution
[8:36:12] avenues that are pushed and formulated through curation --
[8:36:17] and other organizations. They actually move outside of just
[8:36:21] disturbing books. They offer a slew of industry products per
[8:36:26] se and services that we utilize through the state
[8:36:30] education system. And I think it's time we understand what
[8:36:35] that actually looks like and what influence it has.
 >> Is there industry capture
[8:36:40] with some of the organizations? Or some of the
[8:36:43] agendas on the books? We don't know but I'd like to find out.
[8:36:47] Let's say classical education, vendors and distributors don't have fair access because they
[8:36:53] don't have the funding mechanisms or the access to
[8:36:56] public education because maybe there is a conspiracy. We
[8:37:01] don't know. I would love to see the side by side
[8:37:04] comparison. I've been very thoughtful in already listing
[8:37:08] those and in doing so I -- it would be a compliment, just a
[8:37:14] launch pad again to assist
[8:37:19] -- and highlight again what it
[8:37:21] is we're looking for. If you look at that document I can
[8:37:25] see -- I listed out what some of those supply chains are.
[8:37:30] And then we'll get an idea -- there's something missing and we can fortify that and
[8:37:36] that's what we're trying to find out.
 >> Thank you.
[8:37:40] >> I'm going to jump in because we've spent a lot of
[8:37:44] hours in midway discussing
[8:37:47] this and I think the work that has been done is fantastic but
[8:37:53] I'm going to speak against this motion -- I just trained
[8:37:58] on this a few weeks ago of
[8:38:03] -- (inaudible)
[8:38:03] and this is so prescriptive. This is what you're going to do and this is how we're going to do it rather than saying
[8:38:10] here's a timeline, here's what we're going to monitor, go do
[8:38:14] it and report back. I think we're stepping out of our lane
[8:38:18] and -- we're doing staff's job and we're telling them exactly
[8:38:24] -- that's where my concern is. That's just me. Here we are as
[8:38:32] a board and it's for the board. That's my thoughts on
[8:38:35] this. I contradict myself all the time. But I try to
[8:38:40] minimize it a little bit. Anyway, here's what I've got
[8:38:45] as far as comments on this.
[8:38:49] Remember, the motion is not the underlying -- or the
[8:38:53] overarching motion. This is
[8:38:55] the motion to include the USBE library review addendum revise
[8:39:02] -- or draft one as part of the 2026 timeline policy. I've got
[8:39:07] Member Boggess and Member Davis and then back to Member
[8:39:09] Green. Where were you at? You were after Boggess? Member
[8:39:15] Boggess? Vice Chair Bollinger,
[8:39:18] Member Davis. Go ahead, Member Boggess.
 >> I really appreciate this
[8:39:24] document. I like that it provides clarity. I like that
[8:39:29] it takes us out of edu speak and into business speak so we
[8:39:32] can track these pathways. I heard a Member and I don't recall who -- I genuinely
[8:39:38] don't recall who said it -- LEAs might not be able to
[8:39:42] answer their questions. I think therein lies a problem.
[8:39:46] If we have an LEA that doesn't
[8:39:51] know the answer, we have a far bigger issue than we ever thought we had before. We
[8:39:55] should be utterly shocked and horrified they can't answer
[8:39:58] these questions. And so I would argue that if they can't answer them, that tells us a
[8:40:05] bigger part of the story than maybe answering the questions
[8:40:09] might. The fact they don't know how these get in their
[8:40:12] school is very concerning. And so I would speak in favor of
[8:40:17] the motion. I like that it is
[8:40:20] a guide. I like that Member Green said this is a great thing to just hand to staff
[8:40:26] and let them work with it and expand it. I think it does a
[8:40:31] really great job
[8:40:33] of articulating a manner in which it could be understood by the board as it comes back,
[8:40:40] so that it's not just a pile of papers. It's something we
[8:40:44] can understand and make decisions from. I really
[8:40:48] appreciate that and I think you've done really good work.
[8:40:51] Thank you, Member Green.
 >> Member Davis?
[8:40:55] Hold on. There you go.
 >> Thank you. I can support
[8:41:02] this. If my understanding is accurate. I'm checking it with
[8:41:06] our other committee over here
[8:41:07] and she thinks it is but -- what I'm understanding is that our staff is going to send
[8:41:15] this opportunity out -- all of
[8:41:19] the librarians and the LEAs.
[8:41:24] And with this money that they can get to compensate for the
[8:41:27] time to do this -- and if they feel like they have the bandwidth and they want to get
[8:41:32] the extra funds, they can do this and pick it up and do it
[8:41:36] after school. And get this
[8:41:40] compensation to do it. And it would be on a voluntary basis. It's not like anyone's going
[8:41:45] to be forced to do anything and if they are, it probably
[8:41:48] should be an audit and not something else. If I'm
[8:41:54] understanding it right, everyone will be notified and
[8:41:57] those that -- can do it. Is that right?
[8:42:09] >> That is correct. It is
[8:42:09] voluntary, as you mentioned. As a question -- if the board
[8:42:16] adopts this library review
[8:42:20] addendum or, I would want clarification that are those
[8:42:25] the only questions or should there be other questions? Or
[8:42:29] can the document be revised or included in other questions? I guess would probably want to
[8:42:34] have more direction as far as
[8:42:36] that adoption of this addendum.
[8:42:50] >> Member Green, go ahead.
[8:42:51] >> Great questions. I myself wasn't sure how we're going to
[8:42:55] access. I know -- it's the
[8:42:59] process of development. So maybe like the 250 -- it took a second to find our way and
[8:43:05] we did. It worked out great. A lot of work. I recognize that
[8:43:09] and appreciate it. I made it a
[8:43:12] point to include my memo on
[8:43:16] their, just in writing, to highlight that it is drafted
[8:43:22] for staff refinement and board discussion. There's a
[8:43:26] committee -- board discussion, not as a final form. I know
[8:43:31] they have already been working
[8:43:32] hard at creating questions. There's two things here. I
[8:43:40] knew I would be presented with
[8:43:42] the argument that I am doing staff's job. If I didn't do this though and I went
[8:43:49] directly to staff, I would be accused of subverting the
[8:43:53] board and going straight to straight. I decided I would like this way better, because
[8:43:58] it's on the public record. So we are here. And I liked the
[8:44:02] fact that -- that my point is made clear. Every time I've
[8:44:06] had this conversation for over three and a half years now, it always goes back to just hey
[8:44:11] librarians, did you order books? Yep. How many? Did you
[8:44:16] pay? Great. Are they on the shelf? Perfect. That's not
[8:44:19] what we want. I had to physically put it in writing
[8:44:23] so that the direction and intention was 100% clear. It
[8:44:28] gets really confusing. It just does. And the arguments are do
[8:44:33] they know this? Again, if we don't, we are highlighting an
[8:44:38] area that we can get better
[8:44:39] in. It's just a win win win
[8:44:44] all the way around. But we are lacking in understanding of
[8:44:49] the front end of library procurement and library material procurement, the
[8:44:55] industry relationships that exist and we can find that
[8:44:58] out. So with that, this
[8:45:01] document would be a reference point. She's going to make her amazing team and we'll --
[8:45:08] we'll iron out these questions and make sure we're not duplicative and we'll make
[8:45:12] sure that it's staying at the front type questions and then
[8:45:16] we'll build out from that.
[8:45:21] There's a lot of work there. I
[8:45:25] don't need to pat myself on the back. But I'm definitely
[8:45:28] not trying to -- and being very clear what
[8:45:34] we're trying to get at. And
[8:45:36] that's to help everybody.
 >> Vice Chair Bollinger?
[8:45:43] >> To ask the question -- and I would like to reserve the
[8:45:46] right to make a motion. Divina, looking at this
[8:45:52] amendment or addendum -- we just talked about the timeline
[8:45:57] piece and the concerns about
[8:45:58] such a tight timeline. I know you said you didn't quite get
[8:46:09] -- with this information, would
[8:46:09] you need to amend the timeline to meet all of the
[8:46:12] requirements on this document?
[8:46:16] The addendum and the timeline -- there's some overlap but there are differences between
[8:46:22] the two. And so depending on the motion that the board
[8:46:27] makes, we would need to make sure that what's in the
[8:46:30] timeline or the addendum are aligned and inclusive of everything the board would
[8:46:35] like to do. With that I would like to make an amendment to
[8:46:40] the amendment.
[8:46:51] >> If we keep having a
[8:46:52] response every time -- >> I appreciate this and I'll make
[8:46:57] it quick. My understanding is that we are currently still
[8:47:00] developing the survey. So what we've created at this point is
[8:47:04] not completely done. And so if it's not done, and we have
[8:47:11] specific questions, we'll just go like this. And then we are
[8:47:15] good to go. That's what I was hoping.
[8:47:19] >> I would like to strike "include" and change it to
[8:47:25] consider. I'll speak to it.
 >> There's a motion to strike
[8:47:32] the word "include" from the amendment in place it with the
[8:47:37] word "consider." it's been seconded.
[8:47:43] >> Thank you. There's been a lot of work into this
[8:47:45] addendum. And it may be very helpful, as you develop it -- I really am concerned about
[8:47:51] that conflict between staying
[8:47:52] on the timeline or being prescriptive in the addendum.
[8:47:57] I agree with Chair Hymas that it does cross the line of the
[8:48:04] how will versus how well. At the same time, I understand what Member Green is talking
[8:48:08] about where there's that fine balance of -- when you put so much time and energy and it
[8:48:13] doesn't come the way back we want it can be frustrating.
[8:48:18] (inaudible) by striking including and replacing --
[8:48:21] that would then help staff understand this is the scope, understanding what can fit
[8:48:27] into that timeline, understanding is the procurement and those business
[8:48:32] -- we want to make sure we get the right information to make
[8:48:35] decisions moving forward. That's the reason for my
[8:48:37] amendment. 
 >> Member Earl? Member Boothe
[8:48:51] to the amendment?
[8:48:51] >> I just have a question. Is there a reason why the
[8:48:51] timeline has to start today and end at whatever length of time you had set out with a
[8:48:58] timeline? Is there some flexibility?
[8:49:08] To take whatever time we need to get the questions right
[8:49:12] -- and to synthesize together the efforts of those that have
[8:49:18] spent a lot of time and are creating this kind of out of
[8:49:23] the air to make -- to make this a very productive and
[8:49:28] helpful instrument in gathering information, and --
[8:49:33] until whatever later date -- once we did decide now we're ready to start, we've
[8:49:38] had this -- I'm just wondering if there's some flexibility
[8:49:42] with the time so that we get what we are trying to achieve.
[8:49:46] And not feeling like we are -- to the clock or an
[8:49:50] amendment that says -- starting today, you have this
[8:49:54] much time.
[8:50:02] I may be missing something.
[8:50:08] Member Green? I don't know if I'm correct
[8:50:15] but deadlines are always good.
[8:50:19] Also, I was hoping to get
[8:50:23] -- I was hoping to get some understanding before the new legislative session or
[8:50:28] session. I think again, we have to understand the things
[8:50:33] that we are engaging with and making law about. And again,
[8:50:38] I'm going to highlight -- we put a Band-Aid on a
[8:50:40] hemorrhage. And in doing so, because we have a year under our belt and being able to
[8:50:47] -- we've proved processes,
[8:50:49] things are calming down, within the articles come out,
[8:50:54] accusations -- o, these obnoxious parents! These are the ones doing all of these
[8:51:00] things! Well, it's still highlighting that there's
[8:51:04] access to this space through
[8:51:09] the industry. And if we are
[8:51:12] getting impatient, which is we are saying -- you could say
[8:51:17] people are exiting public education because it's not stopping, and they are done
[8:51:23] -- so we want to bring reputation back, we fix it.
[8:51:26] But we don't fix it if we don't know what we are dealing with. You have to understand
[8:51:31] the front end or this never ends. Book reviews never end.
[8:51:35] The headlines for the book Bannings never end. This whole
[8:51:39] conversation never -- and we continue to lose those public -- we continue to lose those
[8:51:44] public education. It's got to stop. I'm okay to take a
[8:51:49] breath and say okay, December
[8:51:52] is not in the cards. Maybe that is okay. Maybe that's the
[8:51:57] way it's supposed to be. Maybe that really is better and we
[8:52:03] should maybe let the timeline flow in the way that it needs
[8:52:06] to. And I won't be privy to that study, so I'll have to
[8:52:10] bum it off somebody when it comes public. But that is the
[8:52:15] why, Member Boothe.
[8:52:19] >> The motion before us is to
[8:52:21] strike "include" and replace
[8:52:31] with "consider." let's go
[8:52:34] ahead and vote.
[8:52:57] [members voting]
[8:53:07] >> That motion fails. 6 in
[8:53:11] favor, 9 opposed. Those in favor are Member Lear, Reale,
[8:53:13] Hymas, Wood, Boggess and
[8:53:15] Davis. So the underlying
[8:53:19] motion then is
[8:53:28] to include the USB library
[8:53:31] review addendum revise. Member
[8:53:34] Green draft one as part of the 2026 timeline policy. Member
[8:53:39] Earl, two this motion.
[8:53:43] No? Okay. Let's go ahead and vote.
[8:53:55] [members voting]
[8:54:12] And that motion passes at ten in favor and five opposed. Those in opposition are Wood,
[8:54:22] --
[8:54:23] but the board's -- I don't
[8:54:25] know how that would look. The board -- that the board adopt
[8:54:31] the 2026 timeline policy draft one is amended on second and
[8:54:35] final reading and -- $60,000 for board discretionary funds
[8:54:39] for implementation and that
[8:54:42] the timeline be adjusted
[8:54:46] -- and -- I just don't know where it is exactly. And
[8:54:54] include the USBE library review addendum revised.
[8:54:58] Member Green draft one, as part of the 2026 timeline
[8:55:01] policy. Member Earl, two this motion.
[8:55:07] >> Just wanted to speak broadly to this. I appreciate
[8:55:12] the details so we can get
[8:55:14] information that's usable. The other thing -- I didn't fully understand this but breaking
[8:55:21] down the timeline, I like that
[8:55:24] it's a group -- schools can
[8:55:29] -- it's not as weighty with
[8:55:31] -- so I do like that provision. I feel like it doesn't overburden entities.
[8:55:38] It provides -- once again it would be a choice that they
[8:55:41] would have to engage in this. I hope people do and I hope we're able to get some
[8:55:47] information that's valuable for us. I'm just speaking in
[8:55:52] favor of the motion.
[8:55:58] >> Vice Chair Bollinger?
[8:56:00] >> Thank you Chair. So my concern -- I was supportive of
[8:56:05] the original process and timeline. Now that we've added
[8:56:08] additional addendum and -- with that addendum we won't be able to meet the timeline -- now we just put our staff
[8:56:15] in a situation where they're being asked to do the
[8:56:17] impossible. I think that's a hard place for our staff to be
[8:56:21] in. So with that I would like to make an amendment that the
[8:56:27] staff
[8:56:31] have the flexibility to adjust the timelines to meet the
[8:56:36] requirements.
[8:57:00] >> Just giving it time to process on the screen. The
[8:57:03] motion is that the staff have the flexibility to adjust the
[8:57:07] timeline to meet the requirements. It's been seconded. Back to you, Vice
[8:57:12] Chair Bollinger.
 >> I want to make sure that if we're going to spend the money
[8:57:16] -- if we're going to spend $60,000 come I don't want us to not be able to meet the
[8:57:20] requirements and the board -- when we put these up to the
[8:57:25] board, I support with the board decided. Now that the board is out of the addendum I want to make sure if we're going to do that we're going
[8:57:31] to have the time to answer all of those questions. With this amendment I'm hoping that that
[8:57:35] is the win win.
[8:57:39] >> Member Green?
[8:57:46] >> Can I just ask them --
[8:57:48] maybe if I can ask you, do we
[8:57:51] see this being able to be done in the next year? Or six
[8:57:56] months?
[8:57:59] Clarifying one more thing. I wanted to highlight that the
[8:58:06] sections like a, b, C -- they
[8:58:10] complement those phases. Those are built into those little
[8:58:13] chunks. Those phases that
[8:58:18] occur. In complement to what you've done as well. And if we
[8:58:22] want to also look at it, every question doesn't take two days. It's kind of like your
[8:58:29] multiple choice test. Sometimes you get stuck on the one. But you go through and
[8:58:34] you do the quick ones first and then you put your efforts on the one that's going to
[8:58:38] take -- however it is -- maybe you do the hard questions
[8:58:41] first and the easy last. Everyone takes their test one
[8:58:45] way. I wanted to highlight that. It seems cumbersome but
[8:58:50] it is organized into each phase. So taking that into
[8:58:54] consideration --
[8:59:02] >> So I think that six months would be difficult, given that
[8:59:09] the team is may. For
[8:59:12] reference. And I think one year would be very doable. The
[8:59:18] other question and maybe guidance I would ask for is
[8:59:21] when we say include this review addendum, are we
[8:59:26] talking about just the questions or part of the survey or what should be
[8:59:30] included that goes out -- or
[8:59:34] is there any -- for example, one of the questions says use regularly, occasionally, not
[8:59:40] used and -- more precise
[8:59:44] language as far as how we answer that. I want to make
[8:59:49] sure that I am following the
[8:59:51] board's direction and there's flexibility as far as designing questions that will
[8:59:58] be easily able to be answered by -- when we put quantitative
[9:00:02] -- to question, it will be easier for our LEAs to answer
[9:00:06] that as opposed to what does -- that might look differently. Someone else might look at that and say is
[9:00:11] that five times or ten times?
[9:00:13] I would want to be more specific about some of those questions come if that makes
[9:00:20] sense. I want to make sure I'm not putting myself in a position where I'm not
[9:00:24] following what the board's direction is.
[9:00:32] >> That's why back to this, just for staff refinement
[9:00:33] -- and develop that so it's -- so it makes sense. It's
[9:00:38] going to be something that you can read the data and receive
[9:00:42] the data and what is in front
[9:00:45] of you now is the questions and the front line questions
[9:00:51] that are of utmost importance.
[9:00:54] Please make that fit. Again, I know there are -- there's the beginning of the survey right
[9:01:01] now. I hope this is a
[9:01:03] compliment to that.
 >> This is tough. I'll say what you're not going to say,
[9:01:10] divina. You're fine. Here we are. We've got Divina over
[9:01:15] this project. Molly sitting right here and we're saying forget you, Molly. Divina,
[9:01:20] when can you get this done and how quick can you get it done?
[9:01:23] Here's the priorities. At what point do we say this isn't our
[9:01:27] job? I cannot do Molly's job. I've been getting this pressure and conversation's
[9:01:33] not only from -- staff doesn't
[9:01:36] say anything. Molly dances around it because she's kind. I get this pressure from
[9:01:41] legislators all the time, and I'm going to go sit before
[9:01:46] them again and say no, we are relevant. We're telling the agency exactly what to do. That's not going to go over
[9:01:52] well. So this just passed, 10
[9:01:55] to 5. Ten say yes, forget this, we're doing this. Again,
[9:02:00] I'm exaggerating. You can probably feel some of my
[9:02:05] frustration. I'm doing what I can and we are doing what we
[9:02:09] can as leadership to keep this
[9:02:12] board on the map. And we are being bought with
[9:02:17] our own members here. So again, we have an idea. We
[9:02:23] want to see something done and here we are saying Divina, how
[9:02:26] fast can you get this done? You don't belong to Molly
[9:02:31] anymore. You belong to us, all 15 of us. That's not fair to her and to Molly and to any of
[9:02:37] these other staff members back
[9:02:38] here. So with that, I'm going to ask Vice Chair Bollinger to Chair for me for just a second
[9:02:46] while I step away, if that's okay.
[9:02:54] >> All right, it looks like we have Member Boothe and Member
[9:02:55] Green.
[9:03:03] >> We certainly don't need to
[9:03:03] tell staff or superintendents
[9:03:07] how to do their work.
[9:03:11] But there may be times where we have questions and we feel
[9:03:17] that we don't have information in that perhaps the agency doesn't have information that
[9:03:23] could be helpful, whether it
[9:03:25] is relating to libraries or whether it's relating to
[9:03:30] absenteeism or whatever. What would be the process? What
[9:03:35] would be the preferred process to gathering that kind of
[9:03:39] information without being
[9:03:42] perceived as trying to
[9:03:47] be heavy handed or assume responsibility for things that
[9:03:53] are not our responsibility? I
[9:03:58] fully support the superintendency and our staff,
[9:04:02] but sometimes there are questions. And if it's just not the time to ask the
[9:04:07] questions, then that has to come at some point later in
[9:04:11] the big scheme of things, we would be certainly open to
[9:04:17] that.
 >> Thank you. I'm going to
[9:04:21] direct that to Superintendent Hart.
[9:04:25] >> So I wrestle with this. You all need the information that
[9:04:30] -- like you said, that you need to make decisions and you have things that are important
[9:04:34] to you. It is very difficult
[9:04:38] to answer to individual board
[9:04:43] members -- I'm speaking overall. Not about this
[9:04:48] particular issue or any one issue. How it is supposed to
[9:04:53] work is that the agency responds to the board. So the
[9:04:58] board decides that something is important and then the
[9:05:01] agency, I, go back
[9:05:05] and come up with a plan based on what you say is important
[9:05:11] and then
[9:05:14] we bring it to you. Staff brings it to you. And you hammer out the details and say
[9:05:20] yes, go forward. What happens
[9:05:23] is we are in a time where everyone or everything -- is
[9:05:29] expected overnight. People are
[9:05:32] not -- in many cases, waiting
[9:05:36] for the board to speak. And answers are wanted now. And projects need to be done
[9:05:42] now. And the speed of which a
[9:05:46] board operates is very different than the speed in
[9:05:51] which individuals operate. And I don't think that that's
[9:05:57] fully understood, and I don't
[9:06:01] think that we have both the
[9:06:05] agency and the board have
[9:06:08] worked out and talked about
[9:06:17] >> It's a military term.
[9:06:17] Operational rules, rules of engagement. We
[9:06:24] haven't really talked about rules of engagement on how to
[9:06:27] meet the needs of the board. We keep trying
[9:06:33] to do it the way maybe -- that it's always been done. But you
[9:06:41] get frustrated when things take a long time. But you meet
[9:06:47] once a month. You have full
[9:06:49] agendas. You spend a lot of
[9:06:52] time on certain -- certain
[9:06:57] activities, something like -- let me give you an example -- consent agenda. Consent agenda
[9:07:06] is designed to be quick. It's
[9:07:09] designed to be things that are
[9:07:13] operational. Noncontroversial, operational, and the rules of
[9:07:23] what goes on in consent calendar are pre-established. You go through it. There's
[9:07:28] things you can check off the list. That's not what our
[9:07:32] consent calendar has turned into. So we haven't
[9:07:37] renegotiated those understandings as a board and
[9:07:41] as an agency. So that we can meet your needs in an
[9:07:45] efficient way. We have 15 members and
[9:07:54] honestly, I have 15 boards. I
[9:08:00] don't have one board. That's
[9:08:03] very hard to manage. So then
[9:08:07] you get bottlenecks and you wonder -- then it makes it worse. It's a self-fulfilling
[9:08:13] prophecy. At some point we
[9:08:16] need to have some discussion about how we do our business.
[9:08:22] Our rules of engagement. For the very reason you are
[9:08:25] talking about.
[9:08:28] It comes up in a lot of spaces. And people have talked
[9:08:35] around the edges of it. Meeting more often but shorter
[9:08:40] amount of time. Meeting longer amount of time but less often.
[9:08:45] It's a topic I constantly talk about with others. What are you doing about the issue?
[9:08:51] What are you doing about this issue? The legislature doesn't
[9:08:55] help with the number of issues. I think quite honestly
[9:08:59] they have the same problem.
[9:09:01] The speed of our world is moving at a faster and faster
[9:09:08] rate. And I was just having a conversation, when Robert's
[9:09:12] Rules of Order -- the book
[9:09:15] came out in 18 whatever.
 >> 1876.
[9:09:21] >> It was this thin. And the Robert's Rules of Order, the
[9:09:26] book is now --
[9:09:29] it is a doorstop. I think it
[9:09:34] would be well in our interest -- because we do need to
[9:09:39] reduce that frustration level. And staff has a hard time
[9:09:44] keeping up. I have a hard time keeping up as you're
[9:09:48] Superintendent. And there's frustration all around. I
[9:09:53] think that's a valid question. I don't think there's an easy
[9:09:56] answer. I do think that we need to think about how we
[9:10:03] utilize our committees and whether or not that committee
[9:10:06] structure, while it served a certain purpose, does it still serve the same purpose? How we
[9:10:12] use our advisory committees. How we engage with ourselves
[9:10:17] and what we allow and what we don't allow. Those are things
[9:10:21] that have to be talked about
[9:10:22] and the simple fact that you are even busier with
[9:10:29] individual interests -- and
[9:10:33] then it's kind of a bottleneck there -- means you have even less time to stop and think
[9:10:39] about your processes. But I do think it's an important
[9:10:42] conversation. I do think that we can do a
[9:10:49] lot of things to tinker around the edges but if you really
[9:10:53] want to solve it you would really need to start -- what
[9:10:57] is the term again? Where you start from zero? Zero based
[9:11:03] budgeting? I think you need to
[9:11:05] take -- that idea, erase the notion of what being a state
[9:11:12] board member looks like -- and
[9:11:15] think about what you want to accomplish and what resources you have and thinking about how to get from point A to
[9:11:21] point B rather than trying to
[9:11:24] continue to put Band-Aids on a
[9:11:29] problem. That's exactly what
[9:11:31] the legislature is also wrestling with. And they finally just said here come
[9:11:39] out we'll give you flexibility. Give pieces of it
[9:11:42] and bring back a solution. I think I would suggest the same things to you all as well
[9:11:48] because it is -- it is very
[9:11:54] hard to take the strategic plan and your vision and
[9:11:59] mission and link the things that we spend our time doing
[9:12:05] and the things that are talked about in board meeting and
[9:12:11] connect them all in a coherent. I think you all are
[9:12:15] feeling that frustration and I
[9:12:18] see it growing. So I don't know if that answers your question directly. But it is
[9:12:26] -- I've been on the job one
[9:12:28] year. And I continue to learn things about the agency and
[9:12:33] the board. I am not close to
[9:12:37] being an expert. But these are the impressions and these are
[9:12:44] some of the things that I have
[9:12:46] come -- that really come to
[9:12:50] the top of my mind right now.
[9:12:58] >> Thank you. We do have a motion on the board comment
[9:13:00] Member Green.
[9:13:03] Go ahead, Member Green.
[9:13:13] >> My response -- >> Like
[9:13:14] there are -- heavy subjects to surface on every board
[9:13:19] meeting. Trigger points. I know this one already was a
[9:13:23] trigger point. I want to clarify that my question about
[9:13:29] the timeline was not to say you've got to have it done in
[9:13:33] a week. I just stated like ten minutes earlier that the
[9:13:38] December timeline is probably not in the cards. I also said
[9:13:43] it's probably okay. I want you
[9:13:45] to know like -- it's okay. I get it. The reason I asked
[9:13:52] that question -- if it's going
[9:13:55] to take two years -- I want to know if it's going to -- one
[9:14:02] is a selfish reason. I'm done
[9:14:05] in September. Technically January 4th. And with that I
[9:14:09] want to know how I need to make a mental note of how to follow up because I'm
[9:14:14] extremely interested in this. And that's all. For that
[9:14:19] reason -- so I'm open to the
[9:14:22] timeline requirements. You've got to do quality checks. For
[9:14:29] your purchasing departments they have rotations, schedules. You order from
[9:14:33] China and it takes months. You order your samples in and review them and send back the
[9:14:38] corrections. There are dates. It's a normal industry
[9:14:42] question to ask for timelines. There was no ill will with
[9:14:46] that at all. And so I also
[9:14:50] just -- I guess that's all I have to
[9:14:56] say. I want to extend that little palm leaf and say we
[9:15:01] are doing great. As far as what it means to be a board
[9:15:06] member, I'm sitting here looking at a mission statement. For anybody
[9:15:10] listening in, ours is that -- to focus on academic and organizational excellence
[9:15:16] -- for an elevated education
[9:15:19] -- we've made a thoughtful, thoughtful list of what that
[9:15:24] means. It protects information systems. Manage public
[9:15:29] education funds, directs transparent operations,
[9:15:32] develops policy for education, advocates for Utah students, provides support and oversight
[9:15:39] of schools. Knowing the front
[9:15:42] end of library procurement and material procurement -- checks
[9:15:47] all of those boxes. I'm the only one I didn't read on that is academic standards -- you
[9:15:53] could probably make an argument on that.
[9:16:00] Obviously because of the effort this is something I felt extremely worth my time
[9:16:05] as a board member. And it feels really good to be able to bring that forward. I
[9:16:10] appreciate the opportunity to do so.
 >> Thank you, Member Green.
[9:16:15] The motion on the screen is that the staff have
[9:16:19] flexibility to adjust the timeline to meet the requirements. Seeing no lights come on let's queue that up
[9:16:25] for a vote.
[9:16:31] [members voting]
[9:16:56] Member Lear?
[9:17:06] So that motion passes
[9:17:07] unanimously, 15 in favor with
[9:17:09] two absent. That takes us back to I believe the underlying
[9:17:15] motion.
[9:17:23] If we can scroll up to the
[9:17:26] underlying motion, whoever's driving --
[9:17:31] to make sure we get that wording and have the
[9:17:34] flexibility -- I believe Greg is adding that in. One of the
[9:17:41] things Debbie -- Newey pointed
[9:17:43] out to me that the way this is worded is a timeline policy where it's not a policy. It
[9:17:50] would be a plan. With that, is there any objection to
[9:17:52] changing policy to a plan?
[9:17:56] Okay, so we will consider that
[9:18:00] unanimous. AAG Cooper.
[9:18:08] >> In discussing it back here, you know how you have all your other little conversations
[9:18:12] going on, we say it probably needs to be clarified that what is being approved in the
[9:18:17] motion, the staff is able to work on this -- that this is a
[9:18:22] springboard for where it's starting. That's what I understand Member Green to
[9:18:26] say. This wasn't final by any means. She was just proposing this so we'd have some place
[9:18:31] to start but it needs to be clarified that this is not --
[9:18:36] these are not the surveys going out. This is just where they are starting. Is that correct?
[9:18:42] >> Can you tell me the wording in the bottom that you said
[9:18:44] that is in the document?
[9:18:50] >> Item and backup. And that is the -- the memorandum, I
[9:18:53] believe. (inaudible)
[9:19:02] >> I would expect you to administer the survey. Is that
[9:19:04] right?
 >> Is that the question you are asking? Administration
[9:19:08] versus creation?
[9:19:13] You started a framework of a survey but you understood the staff may have changes and the
[9:19:18] board may have changes -- so this was the framework. This wasn't the finished survey. Is
[9:19:22] that incorrect? I think we need to make sure it's clear
[9:19:26] in the motion that that is where we're at, that this is not the final thing going out
[9:19:30] to. So would that be in our
[9:19:37] actual motion where it says the flexibility for the timeline? You'd say
[9:19:41] flexibility for the timeline and -- what would be the wording we'd want to add then?
[9:19:45] In the process or in the -- >> The instrument would be a starting point.
[9:19:51] >> The instrument would be a starting point. Subject to
[9:19:54] board approval. Let's go to Vice Chair Wood and then we
[9:19:59] have Member Boothe. Nice.
 >> I have a question to that because we voted to consider
[9:20:05] it, and that failed 6 to 9. That we're going to include
[9:20:09] at. And then your words were this is a starting point. To
[9:20:13] move forward. That's using this as a consideration. How
[9:20:17] does it all work together? We're going to use this as a baseline moving forward and create it in a way that will
[9:20:24] work. That failed miserably.
[9:20:28] What this board voted on is we
[9:20:32] will include this. This is it. How did those two mesh? Member
[9:20:37] Green?
[9:20:44] >> I have -- I have curated
[9:20:47] specific questions that I feel are the most relevant to
[9:20:52] finding out how the front end
[9:20:55] of library curation operates. I would like for as many of
[9:21:01] these to be used, but you know you have already
[9:21:08] begun your survey. If they can complement your survey comment if they can complement or help
[9:21:15] clarify in any way the
[9:21:19] direction that's been developed --
[9:21:27] Outside of being on the phone
[9:21:29] with you all the time, I only felt that this was the most
[9:21:33] specific way I could communicate what it is that we
[9:21:36] are looking for in the review. That's all I have to say. And
[9:21:43] I've got the memo there. I feel like I am -- >> The memo
[9:21:48] is not included with the motion and I think that's what Cooper is mentioning, so we
[9:21:53] either need to include the memo so it's the wording is or we need to add in a motion
[9:21:58] that the flexibility is there is what I'm understanding. Is
[9:22:03] that correct interpretation?
[9:22:09] >> As was pointed out, when it was talked about just as being
[9:22:12] the flexibility and the starting point, that that motion did fail. It's going to
[9:22:16] have to be clarified. Is this as it is what's being voted on
[9:22:21] and what's going on? Or is that memo included which gives
[9:22:25] them the flexibility to make changes?
[9:22:28] >> Can I move to add a
[9:22:31] memorandum? Is that an order? And I separated that because I
[9:22:40] thought it would be more helpful but I should have just left it. Sorry.
[9:22:45] >> Let's make sure that they get that written correctly. Can you tell us what part of
[9:22:49] the memorandum specifically speaks to that flexibility again?
[9:22:53] >> First paragraph. It's the
[9:22:56] first part. So it says it's drafted for staff refinement and -- discussion, not as a
[9:23:04] final form.
 >> It is now on board. If we
[9:23:08] want to change that from committee to board, that's
[9:23:10] probably -- (inaudible)
[9:23:18] >> We voted to include -- >> There's two different things. A memorandum and then this is
[9:23:22] a different document. The memorandum that was adopted
[9:23:26] was the questionnaire in that process. This is a separate one called the memorandum to
[9:23:31] the library review addendum document. It's another
[9:23:35] document. Cooper, can I ask for clarification? Would this
[9:23:41] address your concern? Okay. Thank you.
[9:23:45] >> I apologize on my end. My brain works in boxes sometimes
[9:23:49] and I probably overcomplicated it by trying to oversimplify
[9:23:53] it.
 >> Let's make sure that this is the appropriate amendment
[9:23:59] you are hoping for.
[9:24:07] So the motion is to include the memorandum to the USB library review addendum
[9:24:12] document, draft one as part of the 2026 timeline plan which
[9:24:18] clarifies that the additional documents are included for staff and community
[9:24:22] discussion, not as a final
[9:24:24] form. Do we have a second? Member Kerry?
[9:24:31] >> I thought the body had previously discussed where we were going to reference a
[9:24:35] memorandum or an A that we include the date of that document. So I would just like
[9:24:42] to suggest that if we say we're going to include memorandum, perhaps say the
[9:24:46] memorandum dated August 4th 2026, just to be consistent
[9:24:49] with our prior actions. Thank you.
[9:24:55] >> Since this was a motion, is there any objection to adding
[9:24:58] the date to be consistent? All right. Is there any discussion
[9:25:05] to this motion? I see no
[9:25:09] lights. Let's queue this up for a vote.
[9:25:48] >> Member Boothe? Are you
[9:25:48] voting? All right come with that motion does pass with 12
[9:25:55] in favor, one abstention being Chair Hymas and one no vote
[9:26:00] being Member Reale. Okay. Going back now to -- I think
[9:26:06] our original motion -- maybe we'll hit a record of the
[9:26:10] longest motion.
[9:26:13] I guess we don't want that to be a challenge. I just want to
[9:26:19] make sure that we get all the information in that large
[9:26:22] amendment. Are we adding in that part
[9:26:27] that we just passed? I don't
[9:26:32] know who's driving now.
[9:26:37] We just need to add that motion piece that we just
[9:26:41] voted on. Please.
[9:26:48] Cool. It's fine.
[9:27:02] I think there was some additional -- is there additional language that
[9:27:06] clarified the flexibility
[9:27:10] -- it was in the motion. To amend the motion. It needs to
[9:27:15] probably say exactly what we
[9:27:17] had.
[9:27:42] Christina is going to love the grammar of this motion.
[9:27:48] She's trying not to make eye
[9:27:51] contact with the motion. Okay.
[9:27:55] Let me go ahead and state the motion. And we're almost at dinner time, so we'll get
[9:28:02] there. The motion is that the board adopt the 2026 plan draft one as amended on second
[9:28:07] final reading and appropriate $60,000 from board discretionary funds for
[9:28:11] implementation and include the USBE library review addendum
[9:28:15] revised and give staff the flexibility to adjust the timeline to meet the requirements and that the instrument would be a starting
[9:28:21] point and to include the
[9:28:22] memorandum to the USBE library addendum document August 24th 2026, Member Green draft one,
[9:28:30] as part of the 2026 timeline plan which clarifies that the amendment documents are
[9:28:35] included for staff refinement and community discussion, not
[9:28:38] as a final form.
[9:28:49] It's a quote from the
[9:28:52] document.
[9:28:55] Okay. Seeing no lights, let's vote.
[9:29:26] [members voting]
[9:29:35] >> Okay. That motion passes.
[9:29:35] Ten in favor one abstention. Chair Hymas and two no votes being Member Reale and Member
[9:29:41] Lear. And with that, going
[9:29:45] back to you, Chair Kerry, from
[9:29:48] the committee -- >> That was the last item to be discussed
[9:29:54] in law and licensing.
 >> With that it looks like we
[9:29:57] are ready for a dinner break. There's salads and sandwiches.
[9:30:02] Help yourselves. We did go from lunch -- that time goes fast, doesn't it? How long do
[9:30:09] you want to wait to start
[9:30:13] -- we will take about 15 minutes. Board members, if you will grab your food and bring
[9:30:18] it back, will take 15 minutes and then get going and you can eat while we keep moving
[9:30:22] forward. Thanks.
[9:48:01] >> All right. We are moving to
[9:48:03] our eighth agenda item.
[9:48:06] Scheduled for 2:00. This is our superintendent's report.
[9:48:19] >> I would like to start out
[9:48:20] my superintendent report by
[9:48:21] inviting our -- to the table. And they are going to give us
[9:48:28] a walkthrough of the Art show.
[9:48:32] Are you coming up?
[9:48:35] There you go.
[9:48:43] All right. Hello everyone. I am your K through 12
[9:48:49] specialist, LEAs. And in the summer we give our BTS friends
[9:48:54] a break who normally have artwork up on the wall. We
[9:48:58] have a board member and staff
[9:49:01] art show. I love this show. It's super exciting to see the incredible talent we have
[9:49:06] within our agency. So big thank you to Superintendent Hart for giving us this time
[9:49:13] to talk about the artwork. We have a lot of variety this
[9:49:17] year. We have mediums including painting collage
[9:49:22] textiles, ceramics and all sorts of good stuff. We're
[9:49:25] going to start over here on the very left behind Member
[9:49:29] Lear here of this beautiful base. This is from our new assistant superintendent Erin
[9:49:36] Wilson. It's titled, because I
[9:49:39] had to. This piece is from his undergraduate program where he had to do his general Ed
[9:49:45] requirements. I have noted that he kept it and chose to
[9:49:50] display it. It must have meant something despite the title. Beautiful slab built piece
[9:49:56] there. We're going to move on
[9:49:58] to Doctor Heights piece. Photograph of California Beach
[9:50:04] which is very beautiful. Remember URLs -- is this a
[9:50:08] Highland cow? They titled it
[9:50:12] Highland Cow. I guessed. Sorry. Mid chew.
[9:50:19] >> It's titled -- nursery.
 >> That's incredible. Acrylic
[9:50:25] on canvas I'm guessing?
[9:50:27] Beautiful. Wonderful. And then Andrea Curtin who's one of our frequent fliers and the art
[9:50:33] show -- she makes these beautiful landscape pieces oftentimes inspired by Utah
[9:50:40] comments you always incorporates a quote that is
[9:50:42] inspired by her pieces. That is where you will see -- those days above and then late
[9:50:49] October down below. And then
[9:50:52] we're going to move over to this wolf cross stitch. I did?
[9:50:59] Oh my gosh. This stunning
[9:51:02] installation piece by Member Longacre. What else can I say
[9:51:07] about this? The peak of modern
[9:51:11] art here. Okay, phenomenal. (laughs)
[9:51:20] >> After Member Longacre
[9:51:21] -- contribution, gorgeous, we're going to look at this
[9:51:26] really incredible cross stitch. This is from Karen Johnson who is the executive Secretary in Teaching and
[9:51:32] Learning. And this piece took
[9:51:35] her eight years to complete.
[9:51:37] 157,000 stitches. So she has had to get special permission from her whole family to even
[9:51:46] give it to us on loan for a few days because it is that
[9:51:50] precious to their family. Go look at it up close. It's incredible come the depth and
[9:51:55] dimension she's able to get with cross stitch. Phenomenal
[9:52:00] piece. Next we move on to learning the bare Necessities
[9:52:04] by Terry Davis and she's been doing nature photography for
[9:52:08] about 15 years. I was like did you really get that close to
[9:52:12] those bears? She said she gets pretty up close but they were eating clams. She wasn't
[9:52:18] worried. Superintendent Hart -- I would love if you would
[9:52:24] tell us about this quilt. I'm so excited to have one of your
[9:52:28] pieces in our show because I've heard for years that you were a prolific and talented
[9:52:33] quilter and I've seen the evidence of that here.
[9:52:37] Absolutely. It's big.
[9:52:42] >> It's not done. 
 >> How many hours does
[9:52:48] something like that take?
[9:52:56] >> (inaudible)
[9:53:13] >> I love the -- for your
[9:53:13] quilts. They are beautiful.
[9:53:15] Okay, we're going to scooch on
[9:53:18] over here to -- in the deep end from Jennifer, our fabulous policy advisor. This
[9:53:27] is actually a textile piece. Is a type of art called --
[9:53:31] I'll pronounce the name incorrectly -- it's a Japanese art form called Kinu Saga
[9:53:36] where basically you are using -- instead of stained glass you're using fabric and
[9:53:41] pushing it into a medium to create that cool quilted
[9:53:45] pattern effect. So then we'll scroll down to Golden Stems
[9:53:50] which is by Betty Anker from Special Education team and she
[9:53:55] started doing watercolor during the pandemic. Something to be grateful for. So many
[9:54:00] people took up art pursuits during the pandemic which is
[9:54:03] pretty special. The next piece over is my piece. This is a
[9:54:08] charcoal bison. Inspired by the photography of Edward and
[9:54:15] -- and old photographic
[9:54:17] techniques. Then we went over to our very own coordinator
[9:54:23] -- this beautiful -- she took a five day collage course and
[9:54:29] was excited to show me all the individual papers. (inaudible)
[9:54:35] and really just tell a story
[9:54:36] about a mentor. Look up that. The details -- for music
[9:54:43] person pretty impressive. So
[9:54:47] the next is Moon Overlook.
[9:54:49] That is by -- one of our system engineers. He is the photographer who took
[9:54:57] photographs of all the pieces that you're seeing on the screens. He came in the order
[9:55:02] and took photographs and he's a phenomenal photographer. We're lucky to have this
[9:55:07] talent at our agency. He can go out and help photograph
[9:55:12] events for USBE which is really cool. Very talented
[9:55:16] photographer. Lawson certainly but not least another one of
[9:55:20] our frequent fliers -- Kim from Student Support. This is
[9:55:25] Yuba Lake and he typically does more oil on panels but
[9:55:31] this is his first Foray into watercolor or a recent Foray into watercolor. It's
[9:55:36] absolutely beautiful. So just a huge thank you. Take a
[9:55:41] moment to read the artist's statement if you have time today. Being an artist at any
[9:55:46] level is a lifelong pursuit and the importance of showcasing our own agency's
[9:55:50] artistic endeavors from across is a good message to students,
[9:55:54] keep creating art. Thank you
[9:55:57] so much. Thanks Shanda.
[9:56:43] >> So -- what I'm passing out to you, I
[9:56:49] know that your minds move a
[9:56:50] mile a minute. And thangs -- sometimes you will get finished with them and you
[9:56:58] think okay, done, and you move
[9:57:00] on to the next thing. And one thing that I want to keep in the front of your mind is the
[9:57:07] strategic plan. I think that's part of my job.
[9:57:12] Just because you all finished your strategic plan does not
[9:57:16] mean that the strategic plan is quote done. That is what I
[9:57:21] want you to take away. In
[9:57:23] fact, this graphic here shows how you start with a mission and vision and you go to
[9:57:31] strategic goals and those
[9:57:34] three goals elevate student learning, promote educator quality and effectiveness and
[9:57:41] optimize oversight and accountability. Then the board
[9:57:45] identified 11 priorities across those goals to focus
[9:57:50] efforts on what matters most.
[9:57:53] From those, staff leaders developed 13 cross-functional
[9:57:58] objectives to operationalize. And a couple of you were there
[9:58:04] when we had a facilitator and worked through that process. I
[9:58:10] showed them in a previous meeting. Now we are to the
[9:58:14] point -- and you see where the lines become dotted -- that's
[9:58:17] because we are on the journey. We are creating the
[9:58:22] performance management aspect that will be tracked over time and reported. Those are those
[9:58:29] short term and long term targets. And then, only then,
[9:58:34] once we've established that, we'll look at our initiatives
[9:58:37] and we'll look to see what we
[9:58:40] are doing now and compare them to what you have already
[9:58:47] established as goals and
[9:58:51] priorities, compare that, and then bring to you basically a
[9:58:57] gap analysis, what is overlapped, what do we have
[9:59:02] redundant programs or initiatives, where we have gaps that you might want to
[9:59:07] consider, and I think the links to the conversations we
[9:59:12] started having just a few minutes ago, because activities like this where we
[9:59:17] discipline our thinking and our actions, because we can't
[9:59:21] do everything, and we really need to focus on things that
[9:59:26] are meaningful and have outcomes, this process will
[9:59:31] help you be disciplined in
[9:59:33] having an almost mental checklist by which you can
[9:59:40] compare okay, these are the things that we have decided
[9:59:44] together matter. And then you
[9:59:49] can kind of check new things against that list. It also
[9:59:54] gives me and the rest of the
[9:59:56] agency things that we can ground to and we can tether to. When I go out and speak,
[10:00:06] if I know that I'm speaking on your mission vision, your
[10:00:10] strategic goals, strategic priorities, the things we talked about, then I am
[10:00:15] confident that I am representing the board. If you
[10:00:19] haven't established those or
[10:00:22] you haven't -- if you are not sticking with those, then I
[10:00:29] and the rest of your staff -- we have to guess. We don't
[10:00:33] want to guess. We want to represent and put the best foot forward for the board. We
[10:00:39] want your success. In order to do that, we have to have this
[10:00:44] kind of disciplined conversation and disciplined
[10:00:48] direction. I don't want you to
[10:00:54] think just because you haven't seen it lately that it is an
[10:00:58] abandoned effort or was a one and done. I'm always going to
[10:01:02] take a moment to try to bring
[10:01:04] us back to the strategic plan and the
[10:01:10] operationalizing of the strategic plan. In that vein,
[10:01:17] I want to talk about some items that relate to elevating
[10:01:23] student learning. The nAEP
[10:01:25] scores came out and nAEP is a national assessment of
[10:01:31] educational progress. They
[10:01:35] sample schools in every state and assess subjects, reading and math, in fourth and 12th
[10:01:43] grade -- 12th was a pilot. So
[10:01:46] fourth and eighth grade -- and
[10:01:48] in Utah we had 195 schools. And they were eight and 12th
[10:01:55] grade. That was the pilot they did. 90 in fourth grade and 97 in
[10:02:02] eighth grade. There were 165 traditional public schools, 38
[10:02:11] charter schools and 29 districts. It's how that broke
[10:02:15] down. I'm just going to cut to the chase. If you want this
[10:02:20] information, we can get you links to it. And get you additional information. I'd be
[10:02:26] happy to talk it through with you. We rank fifth for fourth
[10:02:30] grade mathematics. We tied for fourth and eighth grade
[10:02:34] mathematics. Seventh for fourth grade reading and eighth for eighth grade
[10:02:40] reading. We score well in
[10:02:44] nAEP. That is a huge testament
[10:02:48] to our families, our teachers, to everybody, to us, even
[10:02:54] though it makes all of the trials and tribulations, all of the board meetings, all of
[10:03:00] the tough conversations and
[10:03:04] things that we do very much worth it when we know that we
[10:03:10] see results like this, that we know are
[10:03:18] -- that all the states in the nation participated in this,
[10:03:21] and this is how well our Utah students do. They include
[10:03:27] -- a little bit of a bone to pick with them. They include
[10:03:29] the Department of Schools, which I have worked -- I have
[10:03:34] worked alongside them. They have a captive audience.
[10:03:38] Anytime a parent isn't accessible, they can call the commanding officer and get that parent in that
[10:03:46] principal's office right of way. That's a little unfair
[10:03:48] advantage. So they score
[10:03:52] really high. So in some cases, we are behind only Massachusetts and Department
[10:03:59] of War. So I just -- it
[10:04:05] benchmarks for us because we can look nationwide. If I just
[10:04:10] wanted to share that with you. I also wanted to share it with
[10:04:14] you a follow up on the Acadians math because I know
[10:04:19] it was of interest and you all had some decision making you had to really think through
[10:04:25] about Acadians math. What we
[10:04:27] know is that 126 -- we have
[10:04:32] 126 LEAs. 91 will administer
[10:04:39] the Acadians math. 20 will not. 15 LEAs, despite three
[10:04:44] personalized requests for an
[10:04:48] answer, we just haven't yet heard what they are going to do yet. We know that 91 will
[10:04:54] administer. You are not sure
[10:04:58] what you're going to do about Acadians math and I think this
[10:05:04] shows that you made the right choice. Districts wanted to do it and they wanted that
[10:05:09] resource. They didn't have to. That's how many took advantage of the opportunity that you
[10:05:17] provided for them. I also wanted to tell you,
[10:05:23] talking about promoting educator quality and effectiveness, and for those
[10:05:28] of you that have read or were
[10:05:31] on the board when we did the technical assistance audit,
[10:05:36] there were some concerns that that audit surfaced that when
[10:05:42] we gave technical assistance to districts, there were some
[10:05:45] gaps. We realized as part of that audit and part of
[10:05:52] reflecting, we couldn't track our technical assistance to districts. And that's one of
[10:06:03] the main things we do. We provide technical assistance
[10:06:07] to districts. They call us up, they ask us for help, they --
[10:06:12] sometimes they don't want our help and that is fine. But
[10:06:16] sometimes they do and we need
[10:06:19] to make sure we are providing
[10:06:21] expertise, consistent, timely, good information. So we now
[10:06:30] have a USB portal for professional learning and training and technical
[10:06:35] assistance. It gives LEAs one place to request support and
[10:06:40] it gives USBE a process for coordinating and tracking our
[10:06:45] response. It really -- it is
[10:06:50] important, if we are going to measure our effectiveness and
[10:06:54] our outcomes, that we have these kinds of tools at our
[10:06:58] disposal. 83% of our employees in the technical assistance
[10:07:03] audit said that they provide technical assistance, but only
[10:07:08] 18% were documenting it consistently and 40% said they
[10:07:15] never documented it. That is a
[10:07:18] problem. So we now have a process in place every support
[10:07:24] request is tracked, and not only is the request tracked
[10:07:30] but we also have a system evaluation. There's a feedback
[10:07:34] loop. So the request comes in, we provide support, it links
[10:07:44] to the hours that employees
[10:07:48] can get for professional learning for their licensure and such, and then there's
[10:07:53] evaluation of that professional development. So we can report out on the
[10:07:58] effectiveness. This creates
[10:08:00] obviously a record document, documentation of support and
[10:08:08] agency wide visibility that
[10:08:10] didn't exist previously. So instead of relying on anecdotes, we can identify
[10:08:17] trends. We can figure out where we are putting our money
[10:08:22] that leads to the most useful
[10:08:25] technical assistance and maybe identify places where we are
[10:08:32] spending time that we don't really need to be spending
[10:08:34] time. I'm really excited about
[10:08:41] having the stronger system of accountability for the technical assistance that we
[10:08:46] provide to districts. So I
[10:08:51] want to keep it short. I know we're very short on time.
[10:08:55] Let's see. Are there any
[10:08:59] questions about that? Yes?
[10:09:09] >> What percentage would you say off the top of your head
[10:09:09] is of that professional development that we're doing and the technical assistance
[10:09:14] is teaching innovative and
[10:09:19] engaging ways to work with teachers or teach the standards that are coming out
[10:09:24] of our office, to elevate learning, and what percentage
[10:09:28] is helping LEAs with compliance?
 >> Now that we have a system,
[10:09:35] we can report that to you next time we meet. I don't know
[10:09:39] offhand. Have you looked at the data? Would you even be
[10:09:44] able to hazard a guess? Not yet. I don't think we could
[10:09:50] hazard a guess. I'll get you
[10:09:52] some information.
 >> How many of the 13 in the
[10:09:59] middle column, the orange column, how many of the 13
[10:10:04] cross functional objectives that operationalize our goals
[10:10:08] and priorities are focused on academic trajectories and how
[10:10:13] many are focused on compliance
[10:10:16] or organizational types? 
 >> I am looking to phone a
[10:10:23] friend. I'm going to have to get that information for you. That's another good question.
[10:10:29] I don't have them memorized.
[10:11:58] [inaudible conversation]
[10:13:20] >> You never want to ask a question clarifying that might show you are not doing what
[10:13:22] you're supposed to be doing. Who else do you ask? How do you ask for clarification
[10:13:29] without getting yourself in trouble? I was talking to a
[10:13:33] new Superintendent about that particular issue.
[10:13:38] And I think there is a real concern there.
[10:13:42] There is the weight of the world on some of our
[10:13:47] Superintendent. Keep in mind, there are ten new
[10:13:51] superintendents. We have a lot
[10:13:55] of turnover and a lot of new perspectives and a lot of
[10:14:02] learning happening in our districts. We have to be
[10:14:06] poised to help them and also make sure they are meeting
[10:14:12] standard, but do it in a way
[10:14:16] that benefits everybody. It's
[10:14:20] an ongoing conversation. The next thing that I wanted to
[10:14:26] talk about is just to put on your radar quickly that there
[10:14:31] is a PE a, public and appropriations meeting, scheduled for August 18th.
[10:14:37] Please comment if you have time, that's another place
[10:14:41] where you can log in and get information and learn about
[10:14:47] things and hear what's on the
[10:14:50] mind of legislators. Just want to put that on your radar. And
[10:14:56] then saving the best for
[10:15:01] last, we have started a leadership institute here in the agency. It's very
[10:15:11] important for us to build the
[10:15:14] capacity of the people in our agency. There's not enough
[10:15:21] spots in the governor's leadership program. It's a
[10:15:24] great program. Every year we send as many people as we can
[10:15:29] to this leadership program. One of our employees Katie
[10:15:34] double stand up, Katie. Wave. She went and she came back and
[10:15:40] says, we have to have this in our agency. And I concur.
[10:15:44] Katie developed, persevered,
[10:15:48] and through -- I don't know, do we have the resources?
[10:15:55] Katie made it happen. We have graduated our first graduating
[10:16:00] class and please indulge me. I
[10:16:04] would like to read their names. I was going to recognize them a couple meetings ago but we ran out of
[10:16:10] time. We went late. I want you to know their names and I want
[10:16:15] their names on the record. Please come on Michelle Berg,
[10:16:19] elementary science specialist, Molly Basham, early math, sage
[10:16:24] bohman, CTE specialist, and if you are here, stand up. I'm
[10:16:29] not sure if they've all gone home but I think we've got a
[10:16:32] few of them. Benji, youth and Care coordinator, Christina
[10:16:38] Guava, paraprofessional behavior training specialist double
[10:16:44] desk I don't know if we can make that title any longer,
[10:16:48] Theresa Judd, preschool coordinator -- there she is, Quinn Kellis, school support
[10:16:54] and improvement coordinator -- there he is, Chris and Luis,
[10:16:58] student services coordinator,
[10:17:00] Milo -- Milo's not here, Theresa McIntyre, assessment
[10:17:06] development coordinator, Stephanie Patten, catalyst --
[10:17:12] apex director, Danielle Peterson, Pederson, adult
[10:17:17] education specialist, Ashley Pestello, school safety
[10:17:22] specialist, Scott Ross Kelley, and Thomas --
[10:17:31] Vegas. Sorry. I messed it up
[10:17:36] all the time. CTE specialist. Those are our first graduates
[10:17:41] of our inaugural Leadership Development class. Please give
[10:17:45] them a hand. So what they did was they
[10:17:51] studied how to build understanding of their own
[10:17:55] leadership style, how to motivate teams to be positive and productive contributors to
[10:18:01] the agency, supporting the work through political acumen
[10:18:06] and building networks to increase their impact with
[10:18:09] Utah schools, supporting the overall organizational capacity of USBE to accomplish
[10:18:16] the vision and mission of the plan set out by the board.
[10:18:19] It's part of -- so instead of
[10:18:24] a specialist seeing a problem
[10:18:27] in a school, and solving it on their own, they learn how to
[10:18:34] work with others and work across the agency and deploy a
[10:18:40] team in order to solve problems together. And
[10:18:44] bringing people together. It
[10:18:47] is so important that we build our team from within. I'm already seeing the fruits of
[10:18:55] their labor and it you see it because you see those same
[10:19:00] names popping up on things
[10:19:02] like innovative ideas for legislative funding. You see them being recognized as
[10:19:09] employees of the month, because their peers recognize them. You see their names
[10:19:14] being called when you go out
[10:19:17] and visit schools -- I wish I
[10:19:22] had the ability -- I want to
[10:19:27] think of all the ways possible for you to really get to know our staff and understand how
[10:19:34] deep our benches go. And it's
[10:19:37] really exciting. I'm proud of this work. I'm proud of Katie
[10:19:42] and the team.
[10:19:46] And Katie brought this back. She exemplified exactly what
[10:19:52] she learned in the governor's program and she made it happen
[10:19:57] for our agencies specifically. We just put out the
[10:20:01] announcement. Have we selected
[10:20:05] the -- okay. Great. We're going to do phase two and
[10:20:14] maybe we can get you all in front of them for one of their
[10:20:17] sessions. It's a dynamic bunch. Thank you. That
[10:20:22] concludes my Superintendent report and I'm open to any questions or any items you
[10:20:28] would like on my next report.
[10:20:32] >> I've got Member Davis light on. Can I ask a question real quick? I received -- this is
[10:20:38] for the board to be aware. I received an email yesterday
[10:20:41] and so did you, Molly -- in the evening. It's a little late. We couldn't put it on the agenda. It's from Finn
[10:20:48] Rose. He's saying we want this to be considered at EDA. What
[10:20:52] are the board's thoughts? The timing isn't ideal. What I'd like to do is rather than have
[10:20:59] a discussion in here because
[10:21:00] it's not on an agenda, I'd like to send it to board
[10:21:07] members and then you can provide feedback. It wouldn't
[10:21:12] be a discussion.
 >> Feedback directly to Finn
[10:21:16] so it is not -- right?
[10:21:21] >> I'm just saying, reach out to me and then -- >> I want to be clear so that people don't
[10:21:27] think we are doing things -- >> I don't want to do that
[10:21:31] but I do want to give -- at the very least, I want board
[10:21:35] members to see what's been requested of us. So with that, board members, keep an eye out
[10:21:42] for an email. I'll send it and please reply to leadership.
[10:21:47] Member Davis.
[10:21:54] >> I want to a portion of one of the sessions. I wouldn't
[10:21:56] have said that unless you said you were going to open it up to see if board members want -- Member that was so
[10:22:02] thoughtful and gave such a great job facilitating the
[10:22:04] conversation. I missed her presentation a year before that everyone said was so
[10:22:10] good. I beg to go and watch a portion. Just the honest
[10:22:15] conversations that our staff was having about wanting to --
[10:22:20] continuous improvement. It was pretty cool.
 >> Thank you.
[10:22:27] >> Member Kerry?
 >> I was wondering if we could
[10:22:31] get an update
[10:22:36] -- in terms of staffing and direction any action in that
[10:22:39] regard. Thank you.
[10:22:41] Because -- because I have an
[10:22:48] update for staff, but because it was personnel, I was hoping
[10:22:54] to do an executive session. It
[10:22:57] has to do with personnel.
[10:23:02] >> Member Kerry, follow up?
 >> Thank you. In addition to
[10:23:08] personnel, is there any update in terms of where we stand
[10:23:14] with investigators?
[10:23:18] >> Thank you. Can I -- Deputy
[10:23:23] Jones, do you know -- I should
[10:23:28] have asked you -- do you know what step in the process
[10:23:35] -- yeah, the procurement or the investigators.
[10:23:40] >> Deputy superintendent of operations Scott Jones. We are
[10:23:44] really close to release of the
[10:23:46] RFP. I don't know like -- I couldn't say within the next two days or so. But probably
[10:23:54] within or by next week. We'll
[10:23:57] release the RFP for that.
[10:24:07] >> And then do we have the
[10:24:07] posting of -- Dakota, I'm sorry your
[10:24:13] official -- can you come tell us where the posting is for
[10:24:18] the positions that were
[10:24:19] vacant? Come up to the --
[10:24:33] >> HR director? We have two postings right now. One is for a full time replacement and one is for a time limited
[10:24:39] replacement. Both of those are closed and we are reviewing
[10:24:43] candidates. Should have interview sometime next week
[10:24:46] towards the end of the week.
[10:24:55] >> (inaudible)
 >> Can we get Member LEAs
[10:24:57] -- is that what you're saying? A part time investigator?
[10:25:03] >> Time limited. We don't have full funding ongoing.
[10:25:11] Those are for the attorneys.
[10:25:15] Two attorneys. Then the investigations is what we are
[10:25:23] using the 300 000 for.
 >> The attorneys do the
[10:25:27] investigation. Currently.
[10:25:31] Sorry to understand. You're going to hire two attorneys. I
[10:25:38] understand the difference. To do investigations. And then
[10:25:43] also an RFP for a contracted
[10:25:47] company? To handle the backlog
[10:25:51] and do investigations, that the attorneys then take -- >>
[10:25:57] Do they have to be attorneys that do these?
 >> No. The investigators do
[10:26:02] not have to be attorneys. And you're looking for a vendor
[10:26:06] that supplies multiples.
[10:26:10] That way -- I want to try out that strategy because then if
[10:26:18] it works, it might be a more responsive way to handle the
[10:26:23] ebb and flow of the UPPAC. There are months that are
[10:26:31] heavy and months that are not. And in using resources
[10:26:36] effectively, being able to -- we are engaging with a
[10:26:43] company, a service to handle
[10:26:46] the backlog. If it works out well, it's a model that we
[10:26:51] could consider permanently in
[10:26:54] order to keep up and not have as much of a backlog in the future because it would be on
[10:27:03] the company to ebb and flow with the ebb and flow of
[10:27:08] referrals. So to handle the
[10:27:11] backlog -- but it may be a possible solution long term.
[10:27:17] There's also, as we await and
[10:27:21] as we learn about UPPAC and
[10:27:27] await the audit findings, how
[10:27:30] we do the investigation versus the hearings and how that's
[10:27:35] broken down -- if you're separating out the investigator
[10:27:41] and -- the then prosecution so
[10:27:46] to speak -- I'm not a trained lawyer. We can look at
[10:27:51] different models of how we
[10:27:52] process that UPPAC work and maybe come up with some ideas
[10:28:00] on how to be more effective or more efficient in how we
[10:28:07] process cases.
[10:28:16] >> Does that answer your
[10:28:16] question? Okay. Thank you.
[10:28:19] >> Okay. Let's move on.
 >> Unless there's any other questions or comments.
[10:28:28] >> Let's move on to our
[10:28:29] monthly budget report. Scott? Are you with us? You've got
[10:28:36] this? I know you are. I see you.
[10:28:42] >> Let's see, Deputy Superintendent of operations Scott with the monthly budget
[10:28:47] report.
[10:28:50] Okay.
[10:28:56] So I attest and -- that the Utah State Board of Education
[10:29:01] is able to meet all of its financial commitments and obligations. We are in the
[10:29:07] year end close process still.
[10:29:09] We are close. So special thanks to Deborah and her team
[10:29:16] and actually, all the staff, across our whole enterprise.
[10:29:20] It's a big lift. We -- arguably half the state's
[10:29:26] budget and just the hours they spend this time of year
[10:29:30] closing so we begin the next fiscal year right. It's
[10:29:35] outstanding. There is, for your view or benefit, the link
[10:29:42] to the monthly budget report that you see displayed here.
[10:29:46] This does allow for medical
[10:29:49] detail from the line items down to the transactional codes. So depending on what
[10:29:57] program you're interested in, you can certainly drill down on any one of the programs on
[10:30:02] line items. Within this particular report. The board
[10:30:06] and the public are provided
[10:30:09] these kind of details monthly. And then as we move in -- as
[10:30:16] you did -- a couple months ago -- you adopted the legislative
[10:30:21] estimates per line item but the legislature -- those are still available and on the
[10:30:26] record and then the LEAs also provide their boards with line
[10:30:32] item details and -- Canr should be able to provide transactional details
[10:30:37] depending on what a particular board member of the public is
[10:30:41] looking for. We're fully transparent, able to answer any questions or walk any of
[10:30:47] you through this tool or any requests. We so appreciate
[10:30:52] when a board member asks for details upon expenditures so
[10:30:56] that you can make informed decisions and know where every
[10:31:01] dollar is going. All pause. If any questions or concerns come
[10:31:06] up I can move to the discretionary report your
[10:31:08] direction. I don't see any questions. Let's move to the
[10:31:15] discretionary report. Key takeaway for the discretionary funds -- there are some
[10:31:21] available balances. For the motion made by board member
[10:31:25] Green, follow up to a particular use of the funds related to the research
[10:31:30] project by Davis County School District Elementary School
[10:31:35] -- that was reviewed by the attorneys and we followed up
[10:31:41] -- the director said
[10:31:44] they could potentially benefit from the research projects as
[10:31:49] well. We are going to ask that the researcher at the local
[10:31:54] level increase the robustness of their research to meet that
[10:32:00] requirement. That $120,000 is
[10:32:05] loaded. 
 >> Board member Green's motion from last June, specific to
[10:32:12] the discretionary funds. Tomorrow will be discussing in
[10:32:16] Finance Committee some additional -- and additional proposal for use of federal
[10:32:22] mineral lease funds which are
[10:32:23] available still -- we have a pretty good balance of federal mineral lease funds available
[10:32:30] and to the question of when will we -- or have the updated -- that's dependent on year
[10:32:35] end close. We're getting closer. Will update the overall balances to your
[10:32:41] discretionary fund -- probably
[10:32:44] for you December meeting. So you can see how much Carryforward was placed into
[10:32:51] the discretionary funds for additional consideration and use by you. Going forward and
[10:32:57] later into this fiscal year
[10:32:58] 27. So that concludes the monthly budget report. Subject to any questions or concerns
[10:33:05] related to our overall budget and or specific to discretionary funds report.
[10:33:11] Mr. Chair? 
 >> Thank you. I don't see any
[10:33:18] lights but I know questions are constantly being hurled
[10:33:21] your way. We appreciate you
[10:33:25] answering them. Thank you sir. Before we move on to the next
[10:33:35] agenda item, Superintendent --
[10:33:45] >> Yes, I completely blew through the first item that I
[10:33:46] had on my numbered list which is introducing you to our
[10:33:51] Assistant Superintendent of Student Outcomes. Aaron
[10:33:55] Wilson. Will you please come forward?
[10:34:00] Aaron is over -- over CTE,
[10:34:05] apex, Uli, DUI -- data --
[10:34:15] things that involve students -- almost after they leave our
[10:34:20] system. High school come a workforce come on making those
[10:34:26] connections, and also the data
[10:34:30] throughput. I talk a lot about transparency. I talk a lot about school choice. You
[10:34:36] cannot have school choice if the data is not transparent
[10:34:40] and available to parents and we can't make good decisions -- you can't make good decisions come the legislature
[10:34:46] can't make good decisions if
[10:34:49] data about our system is not transparent, available and
[10:34:55] usable. So with that, I've asked Assistant superintendent
[10:35:01] to just say a few words.
[10:35:15] >> Thank you. On a personal note, as I visited with some
[10:35:16] of you in the Hall, you asked me how tall I am. I thought I
[10:35:19] cleared the air there. I'm six foot ten inches and I understand board chair has previously doubled as the
[10:35:26] tallest one in the room. So with apologies to him.
[10:35:30] Grateful to be with you. Honored I get to shoulder this
[10:35:35] work with each of you. Relevant to my introduction, for five years I was the director of a district leading
[10:35:41] a novel organization structure -- I was directly over state and federal programs making
[10:35:46] sure we were fiscally and programmatically compliant while also linking that to
[10:35:50] other departments that I supervised, data and student assessment and recent
[10:35:55] evaluation, making sure that data dashboards were clear and so stakeholders at all levels
[10:36:01] can make informed decisions and that we're vetting the best evidence based practices
[10:36:06] to yield the highest return on investment. I was able to present at national
[10:36:10] conferences during my years as director and being part of the national conversation of how we can align systems at LEA
[10:36:16] level so that we do our best with sacred tax dollars,
[10:36:21] making sure every decision in our systems are streamlined so they are fiscally sound, data
[10:36:26] driven and evidence based. So you can imagine I especially appreciated board member
[10:36:31] Booth's thought this morning. To be clear, I've loved all of the board meeting, every
[10:36:37] minute, but especially when you reprise Superintendent
[10:36:40] Hart and legislator report -- I wrote these down, organizing ourselves to facilitate
[10:36:46] lasting improvement for students, reduced -- between attention, impact and
[10:36:51] leveraging internal controls to yield high impact work. That was music to my ears.
[10:36:56] Superintendent Hart mentioned the sections that I'll be overseeing, having alignment
[10:37:02] on those to make sure that we are meeting board intent and working in concert with our
[10:37:07] higher -- our partners, so as a board we are aligned in
[10:37:11] outcomes based. You know we are doing a good job if we can
[10:37:16] measure student outcomes -- be able to identify what's working and at the end of the
[10:37:22] day when a student graduates, that diploma will mean
[10:37:27] something significant. Previous experience I've had
[10:37:31] would also include being our charter school authorizer and private liaison -- that
[10:37:37] students are resourced regarding of where their student chooses to educate
[10:37:40] them, former high school calculus teacher -- principal and junior high principal
[10:37:46] -- the title won a non-title
[10:37:47] one world -- my doctorate in 2019 from BYU and my dissertation from them was very much in line with the
[10:37:57] board's strategic objective of approving systems that support
[10:38:00] educational effects. So again, proud to be with you and thank
[10:38:05] you for your time. I'm just excited to be -- in support
[10:38:10] with us in this great work.
[10:38:18] All
[10:38:21] >> All right. All right we are
[10:38:27] moving to agenda item ten.
[10:38:31] This is our general session
[10:38:35] legislative prep. If you
[10:38:39] remember, in June we had some
[10:38:42] items that were on the floor. And then we postponed those to July. Then we postpone those
[10:38:53] to now. We're going to jump right in with Member Kerry had
[10:38:58] a couple of motions that were before us. I'm going to turn
[10:39:02] -- if you're ready, Member Kerry -- over to you to
[10:39:05] address those motions.
 >> Thank you Chair. I made it
[10:39:12] two motions. The first was a motion to amend which was
[10:39:16] seconded by Member Kelley. That the board amend our list of legislative parties to
[10:39:22] include reform. The second motion I made was
[10:39:27] that our legislative parties
[10:39:30] include free speech protections and public schools. And it says here in
[10:39:37] the notes, and seconded by Member -- and there is no name
[10:39:42] listed. Those are the two motions. I'm happy to proceed
[10:39:47] in any order you can see fit. Let's start with the first
[10:39:53] one. That's the motion to include in the list the
[10:39:58] legislative request for -- just a legislative priority
[10:40:03] for reform. Again, and help me
[10:40:09] -- how's it calling you for
[10:40:10] just a second. This is not the end program. We're trying to build something. We have this
[10:40:18] list of legislative requests. Maybe I'm getting this mixed up because funding usually
[10:40:24] goes double staff works on something and brings it back
[10:40:27] and then we take a final vote. Legislative requests -- now that I'm thinking about it,
[10:40:33] that is different. We decide on it now and you guys get working on what that request
[10:40:37] looks like. Is that correct?
 >> This item -- that's all
[10:40:43] correct. Typically we'll have changes and then we'll also
[10:40:46] have funding requests. When that goes to P essentially
[10:40:53] -- this year there was some interest in creating overarching priorities, so similar to the way that JLC or
[10:41:00] other agencies have -- these
[10:41:03] are the ideas or priorities for going into the legislative
[10:41:07] session generally speaking. This was made during that
[10:41:12] conversation. For overarching priorities. If that's where you want -- if you want to put
[10:41:19] it in an actual change you can do that as well. We can do both. If it makes sense.
[10:41:25] >> That makes sense. I have jumped straight to 10.4. I
[10:41:30] didn't turn the page here. Instead of 10.1. We're going
[10:41:34] out of key here but we'll keep going and then we'll have to
[10:41:37] backtrack if that's okay. With
[10:41:41] that, board member Carey, we are bringing this motion back before us. Can you speak to
[10:41:51] this motion? What do you need
[10:41:53] on the screen? Go ahead.
 >> I think this should be kept as an overarching request. I
[10:42:00] think it would be odd with an audit with our own internal
[10:42:03] audit taking place for us not to ask for this to be an
[10:42:09] overarching priority, not only in terms of the legislative
[10:42:14] list but also on our financial priority list, just because
[10:42:19] again, it seems like the interest is there by the
[10:42:23] legislature. This board also internally or internal audit
[10:42:29] is looking at this. I just think it's appropriate to include on our overarching
[10:42:34] list if there's additional questions I'm happy to answer them but I think the board
[10:42:40] fully understands the issues involved. Thank you.
 >> Member Boggess I see your
[10:42:45] light. Can I ask a question as one who's going to be
[10:42:47] questioned about this? Last
[10:42:52] year, they asked us -- we had some thoughts and we went to
[10:42:59] them and I just anticipate me sitting at the table and
[10:43:03] saying well, what do you want? What do you want? And last year it was kind of like I
[10:43:10] don't know. Reform. It's just
[10:43:17] -- fix it. Do we have details on what -- when we say Upac
[10:43:23] reform, their role versus our role. And what they can do
[10:43:29] versus what the board can do
[10:43:31] versus what the staff can do. I'm not articulating this well. I wonder if there's some
[10:43:41] detail that would apply legislatively that they could help with, that I could
[10:43:45] respond when they say what is it that you actually want? Let me get your light going. There
[10:43:52] you go. That's understood and I think the difficulty of articulating that at this
[10:43:55] point is I think much of our discussion is going to be dictated by the results of our
[10:44:01] internal audit. It's my
[10:44:04] understanding that -- would be out in November and December and I'm not sure if our own
[10:44:10] internal audit -- perhaps CIE
[10:44:16] Davis can advise us of that. My concern is if we don't list
[10:44:20] this as an overarching priority, do we lose a seat at
[10:44:25] the table on an issue that everyone seems to have
[10:44:29] prioritized? Again, I've never sat in a chair where you have to sit and answer these
[10:44:36] questions. But I do think it would be understandable that
[10:44:40] we need to wait to see where these audits land for us to
[10:44:46] really understand what we will be asking to be prioritized.
[10:44:51] So I just want to make sure that it's clear that we want a seat at the table. I think we
[10:44:56] assure ourselves of that by saying this is a top priority
[10:45:01] for this board. With that, if we could -- I am curious -- would it be appropriate to
[10:45:07] ask where are we in terms of our audit? Is there a timeline
[10:45:09] on the horizon? Thank you.
 >> I know you guys have been -- I don't want to say working
[10:45:17] in tandem but we might go to the same meetings and I don't
[10:45:20] know what you guys go to. I think that would be helpful. And then I'll ask a question
[10:45:26] after this. Go ahead. Thanks for joining us.
 >> Chief audit executive
[10:45:31] Debbie Davis -- so the internal audit when it was
[10:45:35] prioritized by the board, we said minimum of ten months which would put us at December. That said, we are
[10:45:42] actively watching the work that we're doing, the timelines and what legislative audit audit is doing and we're
[10:45:47] providing updates to the audit committee. On where we are. We
[10:45:52] want to make sure the Board has the information available
[10:45:56] in a timely manner for your policy making or if you need to take things to the
[10:46:00] legislature. We have everything done in December? At this point I can't say that
[10:46:06] we will. Well we have some conclusions by then? Absolutely. As far as working
[10:46:12] in tandem with Oleg, they're doing an audit of Salt Lake City School District, employee
[10:46:18] grievance procedures, which kind of includes the mandatory
[10:46:22] reporting from LEAs to UPPAC.
[10:46:31] Right now they're anticipating release of that report in October and they're also looking -- they're calling it
[10:46:33] a comprehensive review -- mostly looking at a case file
[10:46:36] review consistency, timelines, fairness -- and they anticipate having that audit
[10:46:42] done December of this year. We're kind of looking about
[10:46:47] the same time. That's what we're planning on. But for the internal audit, we are working
[10:46:53] as fast as we can but we do know the importance of making sure that you have accurate,
[10:46:57] reliable information and so that's what we're working towards. We are trying to keep
[10:47:02] the audit committee up to date on what's the status and we would love feedback from the
[10:47:07] board. If you say look, wherever we are, we need whatever you can conclude on
[10:47:13] -- by November, December or whatever -- then we want to be
[10:47:17] responsive to that. Again, well we have everything done?
[10:47:21] I don't know at this point. We've taken on a lot with this audit. We've learned a lot and we will be able to share that
[10:47:29] with the board. Maybe I'll
[10:47:32] follow up on a comment. I don't mind putting this on there. I've actually spoken to a couple of legislators when
[10:47:40] they ask about it and they say how can we help and it's like,
[10:47:43] I don't know. How can you help? I don't mind having this on there but what I don't want
[10:47:48] to do is I don't want to sit at the table and have that
[10:47:53] again, a blank stare of we're not even close yet. I guess my
[10:47:57] request -- I don't know if it's an amendment or what it looks like -- but let's put it on there. I'm not even going
[10:48:04] to tell them it's on their. I can say we are working on it but I don't want to sit at the table and answer questions
[10:48:10] when I don't have anything in the moment. I know December is
[10:48:14] a tight window. There's not a whole lot of bills that are
[10:48:19] starting in the beginning of December that are going to be
[10:48:22] successful going through. So I appreciate what Joe is saying here because as soon as we see
[10:48:30] what the legislator can help, let's start pushing it. I don't want to start pushing it
[10:48:34] before we have anything they
[10:48:37] can help us with.
[10:48:51] >> They were just like all right come on next -- I don't
[10:48:51] want to lose this. It's too important.
[10:49:15] Times your mind will put things together come up with your intent, but something to
[10:49:20] think about. Member Boggess?
[10:49:23] >> Sorry. Thank you. So I am
[10:49:27] wondering, it says this list or the list -- are we talking about a funding list or are we
[10:49:35] talking about a policy change list? And all of the
[10:49:39] conversation I didn't really track that to one of those.
[10:49:44] And then I have another question.
 >> Who was that question
[10:49:49] directed to? Either to you or Member Kerry. I just don't know what list we're talking about.
[10:49:55] >> This one right here.
 >> It says the list but which
[10:50:00] list?
 >> Three up there?
[10:50:04] >> Sorry, these are the legislative priorities that we
[10:50:09] have already voted on as a board.
 >> You're talking about
[10:50:13] funding lists?
 >> No.
[10:50:18] I mean, they do get -- they do get tied together funding and
[10:50:26] priority.
 >> Sometimes they are dual
[10:50:29] requests and other times they're just a legislative request.
[10:50:34] >> Are funding requests, there's like five items on that list. And then these are
[10:50:41] -- these are just legislative requests, prioritized
[10:50:46] increases -- we're not saying
[10:50:50] -- we're not saying give us $50 million. We want you to prioritize this, relook at
[10:50:56] where this is appropriate funding formulas for special
[10:51:01] education. So look at the formula and that's what we're asking.
[10:51:06] >> Sorry, let's get you back.
[10:51:13] >> All umbrella items that you wouldn't have a lot of detail to answer if you were sitting before
[10:51:19] I'm not trying to be petty. I'm just trying to be very
[10:51:21] clear on what we are doing
[10:51:25] here.
 >> I agree, this is the
[10:51:30] difficulty. That we experienced. I've only done this one time. We've got other board members sitting at
[10:51:38] this table who have more experience than I do. But that
[10:51:43] is the problem or the challenge I should say.
[10:51:48] >> So with that in mind, I wouldn't mind doing something
[10:51:52] that was broad. What I don't want to do -- this legislature
[10:51:57] screws up about 50% of what it does in education. And everybody can make fun of me
[10:52:04] for being so bold but if we just say to them you pack reform, without any
[10:52:09] specificity, they could go rogue really quickly. And so I
[10:52:15] would like it to be UPA reform specifically in terms of funding they always tell us
[10:52:24] what we don't do but then they don't fund us to do what they want done. So maybe it should
[10:52:29] say you pack reform including
[10:52:33] funding the desires of the legislative body. Something to
[10:52:38] that effect. Because I think if they say we want cases
[10:52:44] resolved in 90 days, that needs to be funded. That costs
[10:52:48] money. If they say we want -- whatever sent out -- I'm trying to think of things that came up last term in my mind
[10:52:56] is going blank. But in fact I'll make that motion. I moved
[10:53:01] to amend the motion to say
[10:53:05] UPPAC report and funding to accommodate legislative
[10:53:10] priorities. That way you have something to talk about.
[10:53:15] And if Carol doesn't like that
[10:53:18] word, I'm open to another one. That means that they're going to tell us to do something, we
[10:53:25] need funding to get it done consistent with I'm okay with
[10:53:29] that. And that way we are talking about the money it
[10:53:35] takes to do what they're asking us to do. As well as
[10:53:39] the overarching reform.
 >> Let's get this motion
[10:53:44] together here. So you want to
[10:53:48] add, after you reform, add and funding consistent with
[10:53:55] legislative priorities.
 >> Legislative board
[10:54:00] priorities -- Carol, I'm happy to do whatever. I just don't think we should leave the funding piece out of it
[10:54:07] because they can reform until blue in the face. But when we don't have the money to get it done, we're in a constant
[10:54:12] vicious cycle and it's unhealthy and the USBE always
[10:54:17] takes the beating in this when we have asked year after year
[10:54:22] after year for them to fund our staff and our audit staff
[10:54:27] and every year they say no. And every year they get mad at us because something's not happening. We don't have the
[10:54:33] staff to get it done. So I would offer that if we're not
[10:54:37] talking about funding and reform together, we are
[10:54:41] missing the mark. I don't care how people amend this but I do think this board has to
[10:54:49] address these two in tandem or
[10:54:51] we will lose this battle. So those are my thoughts. Happy
[10:54:56] to entertain. Let me get a second and a motion and then
[10:55:02] you can share your thoughts. Okay. So the motion before us
[10:55:08] is to add after UPPAC reform a finding consistent with
[10:55:14] legislative priorities, I've got Member Boothe to this
[10:55:16] amendment. Go ahead.
 >> I think this amendment and
[10:55:24] the initial, the original
[10:55:26] motion -- I would be very supportive but I'm concerned
[10:55:33] that once we get this motion passed that it becomes number four on the list above of the
[10:55:40] three that we've already done.
[10:55:43] And someone, in order to help prepare you, Chair Hymas, has
[10:55:49] got to articulate that whether this is a board discussion or if it goes to a committee, or
[10:55:55] if it is a staff function,
[10:55:58] someone has to articulate in 1 or 2 sentences what
[10:56:03] specifically do we mean by what you've just said in your
[10:56:07] motion? With enough, 2 or 3 sentences -- they go okay, I
[10:56:14] can see what that priority is. And the other three that are already up there, at this
[10:56:19] point -- if you look, for
[10:56:24] example, at the -- JLC, and their priorities, they have
[10:56:29] just -- not a paragraph, maybe two sentences, that clarifies and articulates what those
[10:56:36] things are. And then you've got some talking points or
[10:56:40] your elevator speech ready on the spur of the moment to say something -- you're in a
[10:56:46] conversation with the legislature -- or you're sitting at the table having to
[10:56:51] respond. Right now these are priorities but what do we mean
[10:56:56] by these priorities and as you were saying a minute ago, what would we want from them? How
[10:57:03] do we accomplish that once we voted on this? How do we
[10:57:07] accomplish that so you're not just left with a list of here's our priorities but they
[10:57:12] still don't see anything? You're not prepared to say anything.
[10:57:17] >> We need to help equip you to be able to be successful.
[10:57:21] >> I have information. When is the first time you will sit before the
[10:57:28] legislative committee? In
[10:57:30] October interim or January?
[10:57:41] >> October.
 >> Could we leave it open and
[10:57:43] until October? I'm not disagreeing with Member Boothe. I think it is important but I also think we
[10:57:49] could put stuff underneath there and these audits could come out and we could be dead
[10:57:52] on or we could be -- or whatever. And maybe you could stay consistent with
[10:57:59] legislative priorities and audit recommendations. We could add that, so that way
[10:58:05] you could at least talk about these audits are pending and they should be done before the
[10:58:09] session. Perhaps I could amend my own motion.
[10:58:14] >> That was my thought as well. I don't want to -- I
[10:58:20] want to have answers before I have -- >> But if you have to
[10:58:25] speak in October, perhaps we need to -- if you can't say it unless it's voted on, perhaps
[10:58:30] we just need to add an possible audit recommendations
[10:58:35] or something so that you can at least have the appropriate
[10:58:39] language to engage in the conversation because the funding piece really needs to
[10:58:44] be talked about in tandem. And this autumn audit recommendations will cost money. I don't know what they
[10:58:51] are yet but every time I've seen an audit come out, you
[10:58:56] need money to do what they're asking. So we have two amendments
[10:59:02] -- we'd have to pass one amendment.
 >> Our motion to amend right
[10:59:06] now is to add, after Upac
[10:59:10] reform, add funding consistent with legislative priorities.
[10:59:15] Member Kerry, to this motion --
[10:59:24] >> Chair, I would speak against the motion. The reason being that we talk about
[10:59:28] reform -- I thought the matter raised -- it took a pivot at
[10:59:31] the end. I think reform for
[10:59:35] reforms sake isn't healthy and I would feel much more comfortable with the language
[10:59:42] -- I don't see it there anymore but about the funding
[10:59:46] being consistent --
[10:59:58] While the legislature said it
[10:59:59] come on let's do it. Audit said it come on let's do it. I
[11:00:04] don't want to put my eggs in those baskets. I don't know what they're going to say. But
[11:00:09] I do know that I could support reforms that better protect teachers due process
[11:00:15] protections. Rather than -- if the legislature makes a priority come if the audit
[11:00:20] makes a priority, we're in -- no. I'm only in to the
[11:00:24] extent that these reforms better protect our educators
[11:00:29] and teachers. I know it's a
[11:00:33] slight difference but again, this notion that any reform is good reform -- I shy away from
[11:00:41] that. That's why I won't speak
[11:00:43] against it. Thank you.
[11:00:48] >> Next I have -- go ahead.
 >> Thank you. I just had a
[11:00:55] thought that might help with the framing of this conversation. We have it in
[11:01:01] the past done these overarching priorities. In the past there's just been a list
[11:01:06] of things we want changed and then we have a list of funding things we want and then
[11:01:10] usually halfway through the session they ask us to shorten that list of things that we want. That can be a hard
[11:01:15] process. This could be seen as
[11:01:19] the metric, this list of your legislator priorities. It could be broader and seen as
[11:01:25] the metric by which you make those decisions later on. I would see this particular one
[11:01:32] about Upac saying okay, when push comes to shove and we've
[11:01:35] got to decide on our top three funding priorities, we want it to align with these things that we've listed out as our
[11:01:42] most important. I'll say for right now, in your backup
[11:01:47] you've got funding requests, about ten of them. We have another six coming out for
[11:01:52] next month. We have about 17
[11:01:56] changes that we're looking at and not all of those are going to happen. There are already
[11:02:02] about three of those related that we could easily say you
[11:02:06] know, if we need to decide what's most important, we'll use this list of bullet points
[11:02:11] to say okay, this is what we're going to go for. That might help when framing this.
[11:02:17] Thank you. 
 >> Member Lear? I was just
[11:02:24] trying to write down some of these ideas so I was sounding
[11:02:27] more linear. First, I think
[11:02:29] reform is a presumption. I don't think we know yet what those audits will find. They
[11:02:38] may find that things -- as we heard from a
[11:02:43] number of stakeholders, that things are run pretty well but there are changes that would
[11:02:49] be in order. I think reform as a presumptive word we should
[11:02:53] not use. I would prefer review. Or some other word
[11:02:59] like that if we're going to even speak about this. But I do think with the two
[11:03:04] extensive audits, we've got to find a way to say that we will
[11:03:09] address the concerns that we find from a data driven process, not from a handful of
[11:03:15] anecdotes that we've experienced loudly and
[11:03:18] repeatedly. So I don't support the word
[11:03:24] reform. I don't mind the word
[11:03:27] review. I cannot assume that those changes are my changes might not be to protect
[11:03:34] teachers due process. Because I don't know -- of course I believe in that but I don't know that that's going to be
[11:03:41] the biggest problem that these audits find. I want to be able
[11:03:44] to react to that with data and not emotion. So right now, I
[11:03:52] hear what you're saying about -- I support the review and
[11:03:56] maybe that is an easier thing to say, that the board
[11:03:59] supports a review of Upac rather than a reform because that suggests we want to look
[11:04:06] at what the issues are and do
[11:04:08] something about it. Pardon me?
>> Can somebody audit the review
[11:04:16] -- >> I'm using review to mean the board's response to the
[11:04:20] audit. You can call it an evaluation. Maybe there's a different word. I think to
[11:04:28] assume that an audit -- that two audits are going to say a
[11:04:33] reform -- reform to me sounds big and overwhelming. I don't
[11:04:39] know that we're there yet. It's a presumption based on a lot of anecdotes that have
[11:04:44] been loud and repeated. And so I want to see what the data
[11:04:48] says, not what we've heard by
[11:04:52] anecdote. I cannot support
[11:04:55] reform. I can support review. Or consideration, or if there's a better word for
[11:05:04] review of the results of the audit. The audits regarding
[11:05:09] Upac. I do support that. I
[11:05:12] don't want to presume and say that I want to better protect teachers rights. Maybe we find
[11:05:20] we need to say we need to be
[11:05:21] more protective of students in classrooms. Or
[11:05:29] we need to be more -- our biggest problem is efficiency.
[11:05:35] I'm making this up because I don't know what the audits will say. But I want to stay
[11:05:40] open minded to what those audits find and not draw conclusions before we've even
[11:05:46] seen them. I also don't want to push them. I feel we are
[11:05:50] just battering with the timeline every time we talk to
[11:05:55] her every meeting. And I think
[11:05:58] what we need is good data and thorough data and not rushed
[11:06:06] data. So those are my
[11:06:09] thoughts. I don't have them in perfect order either. I reject
[11:06:15] the word reform and I don't want to say what I believe
[11:06:21] -- what could come of the audits until we see what
[11:06:25] becomes of the audits.
 >> I've got Member Reale. Go ahead.
[11:06:33] >> Thank you Chair. I agree --
[11:06:37] I sort of agree with what Member Boggess said except I think it's less than 50% that
[11:06:42] the legislature gets right or -- I -- yeah. I think it's
[11:06:49] less. I think part of that is because I don't listen to us which is going off of what
[11:06:54] Alicia said about our priorities and this long list of spending a lot of time right now talking it through
[11:06:59] this is not worthwhile and an effective use of our time when
[11:07:04] generally, at least -- as my fourth year on the board --
[11:07:09] they've ignored most of our requests or done things without caring if we put reform or review or care if we
[11:07:15] want them to do upac or not, so at this point I'm going to call the question because I
[11:07:20] think we need to move on to the next item. I don't think there's going to be major
[11:07:25] impact either way so I call to question.
 >> The question has been
[11:07:29] called. This is on the motion to amend to add Upac reform
[11:07:35] the wording and funding consistent with legislative
[11:07:39] priorities. And -- I don't see any
[11:07:46] additional lights. I know. I
[11:07:52] know. Let's do it. Let's not
[11:07:56] spend more time on that. Vote to call the question. Let's
[11:08:00] put that up.
[11:08:19] [members voting]
[11:08:43] That vote passes, 11 in favor and one abstention and three
[11:08:48] no votes. Abstention coming from -- no votes from Boggess
[11:08:53] and Longacre and Member Kerry. The question has been called. That means we are now voting
[11:08:59] on Member Boggess amendment to add the wording and funding consistent with legislative
[11:09:04] priorities. Let's vote.
[11:09:40] >> That motion passes, ten in
[11:09:40] favor and one abstention, four no votes. The abstention from Member Bollinger and the no
[11:09:44] votes from Member -- Hymas and Reale and Lear. So we now have
[11:09:50] a new motion before us. And
[11:09:54] that reads -- where's our where is our
[11:10:02] -- where is our amended
[11:10:04] motion? The board amend to add the legislative priority list
[11:10:11] to add to the legislative priority list -- Upac reform and funding consistent with
[11:10:17] legislative priorities. Any
[11:10:21] other questions, Member Davis?
[11:10:33] >> I'm just making sure I understand, we are just adding
[11:10:37] UPPAC to what's already been done. We're not changing all the things we've done so far
[11:10:43] to just be those three bullets, right?
 >> There are potentially four
[11:10:48] bullets depending on if this next motion goes through. We
[11:10:52] are just adding to the list. We're going to do that anonymous ranking thing ultimately and then we'll see
[11:10:59] what our priorities are.
 >> We don't typically rank the legislative priorities if I
[11:11:03] understand correctly. We will rank funding requests. These are all funding requests.
[11:11:09] >> That's what Christina said
[11:11:11] and we had that conversation. 
 >> The requests are for the
[11:11:19] ones that are on --
[11:11:27] >> I think of this as --
[11:11:27] well
 >> Well, the statutory changes can be many. The funding
[11:11:35] requests can be few. And I
[11:11:39] have a motion for a statutory request. I guess I need to know where to put it. Is it in
[11:11:46] this agenda item or a different one?
[11:11:50] >> It would be in a little bit. Vice Chair? I think the reason we're confused is because we have three
[11:11:56] different agenda items that have to do with legislative sessions. If you look at the
[11:12:01] agenda we are on 10.4 which is legislative priorities and to Kelsey's points these are big
[11:12:05] ideas. Item 10.2 is actually statutory request changes and
[11:12:10] 10.3 is drafting funding requests and so at this point these are just big ideas to talk about. We can spend our
[11:12:17] time on the big ideas and I'd rather spend our time on the actual requests. Just for
[11:12:22] clarity. Okay
[11:12:27] >> Okay. The motion before us
[11:12:30] then is -- that the board amend to add to the
[11:12:37] legislative priority list reform and funding consistent
[11:12:41] with legislative priorities. Let's vote.
[11:13:10] That motion fails. Ten
[11:13:13] opposed, two abstains, three yes votes, yes being Member Kelley, Green and Kerry and
[11:13:19] the abstention from Member Earl and Member Davis. Member
[11:13:24] Kerry, I know you are up again.
[11:13:33] >> I sent the second motion to
[11:13:33] Elise for posting.
[11:13:46] >>
[11:13:48] Okay, is this correct? I'll read it out loud. The motion
[11:13:48] is to add to the 2027 Legislative Priorities list, provide legislative changes and funding to support
[11:13:55] constitutional free speech protections of students and teachers against social
[11:14:01] scoring and Dignity Index speech codes in public
[11:14:05] schools. Is this the same
[11:14:09] motion that we had? Is there somebody -- we don't have a name for a second. Do we have
[11:14:16] a second on this? Okay. Back to you, Member Kerry.
 >> Thank you Chair.
[11:14:22] Increasingly, and I've seen this and met with I think board member Hall was there
[11:14:28] -- board member Earl may have been there. We met with the president of the University of
[11:14:33] Utah -- who assured us that the speech codes were not
[11:14:37] being written, when he was shown speech codes being written, he was really jammed
[11:14:43] up about that. I do see this
[11:14:46] increased tendency to have our public schools used as an
[11:14:52] opportunity to comment instead of the free flow of ideas, set
[11:14:56] of true discussion and debate, some speech is being
[11:15:02] penalized. I don't think that's appropriate. I don't
[11:15:09] want to see our universities use the privilege in place
[11:15:16] they have in training our
[11:15:17] teachers to develop this mindset that certain content,
[11:15:25] certain content related speech is preferred over others. So
[11:15:30] this is just our way of making sure the legislature knows
[11:15:35] that this is something that we
[11:15:38] do prioritize. I think a broad reading of this is even the discussions about well, maybe some of the state board
[11:15:46] members shall be rather than elected -- I look at that as a
[11:15:51] free speech issue. You're taking away the right of the public to appoint or elect
[11:15:56] board members. But limiting it just to the issue stated here,
[11:16:02] the motion is to provide legislative changes and funding to support constitutional free speech
[11:16:08] protections of students and teachers, social scoring and
[11:16:12] dignity speech codes -- thank you.
[11:16:17] >> Member Davis?
[11:16:25] >> I guess when I see our priorities I feel overarching.
[11:16:32] So my preference is to wait and do our rankings before we
[11:16:39] do our overarching priority so we get a feel for where the board is coming from and what
[11:16:43] it is prioritizing. That's just my thought because
[11:16:49] the priorities are big picture
[11:16:52] things. Big 50 foot things.
 >> Member Kelley?
[11:17:04] >> This is giving me an opportunity to go full circle. I don't know if you remember
[11:17:06] but earlier in our board meeting today there was a
[11:17:09] motion made concerning the citizenship rights. And
[11:17:17] our students and what
[11:17:21] constitutes participation in a
[11:17:23] lecture. This is where -- I don't want to micromanage and
[11:17:30] Chair Hymas express -- making sure that local control exists. But I think the
[11:17:36] overarching idea is that we
[11:17:40] can't -- we cannot use speech
[11:17:44] to punish students. I think these index scores -- dignity
[11:17:52] index scores that are creeping into education are a good
[11:17:57] example of that. It's being used to weaponize speech and
[11:18:03] so I think -- Member carries motion is appropriate and I
[11:18:10] support it.
[11:18:18] >> Okay. Member Kerry, go ahead.
 >> Thank you Chair. Can we
[11:18:20] look at the three priorities
[11:18:21] that were passed back in June? We talk about does this
[11:18:30] qualify as maybe not overarching enough? I tend to think that sometimes the board
[11:18:36] overemphasizes money and when I look at these three, this is
[11:18:41] the best we have to offer -- this is what we're saying more
[11:18:44] than anything else, these are our priorities. And it's
[11:18:49] money. I understand money, you need it and you need lots of it to make public education
[11:18:57] run. But just because there's a request for an overarching
[11:19:02] priority that maybe doesn't require funding to a particular program, or it
[11:19:07] maybe doesn't grow a particular bucket of money, that is no reason to discount
[11:19:13] it and say well, this is really just a specific request
[11:19:17] for statutory change. I think this is fundamental to the
[11:19:21] protection of our students. Regardless of the belief they
[11:19:27] hold and the speech they want to articulate, but I just want
[11:19:33] to urge us not to fall into the mistake of saying well, there's not a particular
[11:19:38] bucket here that we are growing or requesting funding for. And because of that it
[11:19:44] shouldn't qualify. I think protecting students and
[11:19:48] protecting their speech, our educators, their speech, that that does qualify as an
[11:19:54] overarching priority for the board. Thank you Chair.
[11:20:00] >> So the motion before us
[11:20:03] -- we can scroll to it.
[11:20:08] Is to add to the 2027 Legislative Priorities list, provide legislative changes
[11:20:16] and funding to support constitutional free speech
[11:20:19] protections of students and teachers against social scoring and Dignity Index
[11:20:26] speech codes in public schools. Seeing no lights, let's go ahead and vote.
[11:20:36] [members voting]
[11:20:48] all right then with that
[11:20:51] motion passes. Eight in favor, one m attention and six no votes. Abstention from Member Davis and no votes from Member
[11:20:58] Wood and Lear and Hymas and
[11:21:01] Bollinger. Okay.
[11:21:06] Let's come if we can -- I don't see any other lights.
[11:21:12] Let's close 10.4 and go back to 10.1 and do this in the order we should have done it.
[11:21:19] Thank you for your patience and thank you Member Kerry for
[11:21:23] bringing those two month sitting motions back. I apologize we didn't get to
[11:21:30] those.
[11:21:31] So 10.1 is reporting
[11:21:36] requirements study.
[11:21:52] And Trish, are you doing this
[11:21:55] or at? Okay.
[11:22:28] >> Okay. Hi board members. Trish I'm a senior research
[11:22:28] analyst. I'm here to talk about HP 500 eights reporting
[11:22:31] requirement study. So before we get started I wanted to give the board some context
[11:22:38] for possible actions. This study will need to be submitted and prevented to the
[11:22:44] Education Interim Committee by September 15th of this year.
[11:22:48] Some possible board actions are to receive the report and send it to the legislature. To
[11:22:54] make a motion in support or opposition of the study. Or to
[11:22:59] make a motion to add or remove recommendations. Some context
[11:23:04] for when the study came from, HP5 hundred eight was a school
[11:23:08] data amendment from the 2025 legislative session. They require three reports. The
[11:23:15] first was Student Information Systems study which was completed in September of last
[11:23:21] year. The next is this reporting requirement study which is presented today and the final is a data retention
[11:23:27] study which will be presented next month. To fulfill these
[11:23:31] reports, USBE hired me and
[11:23:36] these are the two reports that need to be submitted to the legislature by the 15th. I'll
[11:23:42] be talking about the reporting requirements today. In order to fulfill the requirements of
[11:23:47] the law, the data systems and Reporting Advisory Committee was established and here's
[11:23:53] information about them. We have met every other week for about two hours to complete
[11:23:58] all three of these studies and it's time limited so we'll be
[11:24:02] wrapping up this committee in September and their purpose was to provide guidance and
[11:24:07] review findings. The three parts of the study -- in the study is in backup -- the
[11:24:14] first is a catalog of reporting requirements and the next is administrative burden of reporting requirements so a
[11:24:20] measure of that burden and the final is recommendations.
[11:24:24] We'll talk about reporting requirements we're going to use reporting requirement, report and data collection
[11:24:30] interchangeably. That is information that USBE or LEAs
[11:24:34] are required to submit and that's typically -- that will be submissions that USBE
[11:24:40] submits to the state legislature or federal government and reports that
[11:24:44] LEAs submit to USBE, the state or federal government. These
[11:24:50] include surveys, grants, data submissions and they do not
[11:24:55] include external audits, LEA requirements like trainings or compliance or information
[11:25:01] submitted to parents or -- information transfers. So in
[11:25:07] order to get this catalog of reporting requirements I met with every section of USBE, directors and coordinators
[11:25:13] were trained on inputting data and then staff responsible for
[11:25:17] requirements input all the data for LEA and USBE
[11:25:21] reporting requirements. This took about eight months to complete and included over 104
[11:25:28] staff. In addition to just what the reporting requirement is, they also provided this
[11:25:33] additional information which we now have in the catalog. To
[11:25:39] get to capture the
[11:25:40] administrative burden, USBE staff were asked to report on
[11:25:48] the reports that USBE submits parents are asked to report the time they spend as well as their level of frustration.
[11:25:54] Then for reports that USB receives that are submitted
[11:26:01] from LEAs, staff were asked to tell us the time spent and their level of frustration and
[11:26:10] USB staff indicated the time it takes to prepare, to collect the report,
[11:26:11] communication with LEAs. For
[11:26:19] LEas we asked a sample of them
[11:26:19] to share with us a sample of reports, to tell us about the time they spend on those as
[11:26:26] well as their level of frustration.
[11:26:31] It looks like it looks like this. This is in your board backups as well, a link in the
[11:26:36] memo. It is full of information. So in order to
[11:26:42] tackle all of these requirements, there's two big sections -- mandatory, so
[11:26:48] required reporting requirements and there's also elective. Optional programs.
[11:26:53] While not strictly required, many rely on the funding and
[11:26:59] programing support offered through these elective grants or programs. Offered by the
[11:27:05] state and federal government. So they were included. I'm going to give you a little
[11:27:09] sense -- just a small fraction of the information -- so here
[11:27:15] by the numbers -- for LEA we found there are 63 mandatory district reporting
[11:27:20] requirements and 56 mandatory charter requirements. For
[11:27:25] mandatory and elective there are 180 total district reporting requirements and 176
[11:27:32] total charter score reporting requirements. For USBE we
[11:27:36] found there are 276 reporting requirements that USBE must
[11:27:41] submit. A little more, just a taste of the information in the report, for those
[11:27:48] districts and charters we can also track their legislative bases. The federal codes,
[11:27:54] state codes, administrative rule or combination that they
[11:27:58] are included in.
[11:28:01] But also we can also look at how many of these requirements
[11:28:06] are connected to funding. For a sample of the district reporting requirements, here's
[11:28:15] a taste of information. They
[11:28:18] reported spending 17,695 hours -- 88 of the total reporting requirements the districts
[11:28:25] must submit. And their level of frustration which they
[11:28:30] reported. How many hours are required for a student? I thought I'd throw that number
[11:28:37] out.
[11:28:59] >> We found this really fascinating.
[11:28:59] There's a lot of conclusions you could draw. But I think
[11:29:04] one of the things that's interesting is how many employees throughout our
[11:29:08] state, whether LEAs or SUBE, are hired specifically to do
[11:29:17] the reporting requirements and that's reflected in this chart. You're not going to be frustrated if that's your full
[11:29:20] time job is to fulfill these requirements. As policy makers, an interesting
[11:29:25] question is that what we want to be hiring people to do -- yes a lot of times the answer is yes. It's an
[11:29:31] interesting question to keep in the back of your mind anytime there is reporting
[11:29:35] requirement.
 >> Thank you.
[11:29:46] >> For the USBE staff portion, for total district reporting
[11:29:46] requirements if all 180 staff responded to -- staff reported
[11:29:52] spending 609,256 hours on facilitation
[11:29:57] activities related to these reporting requirements which is the equivalent of over 293
[11:30:02] full time employees there's a level of frustration that
[11:30:07] staff reported.
[11:30:21] >> Why are they not more frustrated?
[11:30:21] >> Are they just kind of -- are they just kind of like
[11:30:26] -- >> We try. What if we gave the not frustrated all of the
[11:30:30] extremely frustrated work
[11:30:33] -- and then -- 
 >> I'm sort of not kidding. If
[11:30:43] my -- if I realized how much
[11:30:45] reporting -- how much time reporting takes of my meaningful job, I would be
[11:30:52] hugely frustrated. You'd be doing 609,000 hours of
[11:30:57] technical assistance and really being helpful to school districts and charters. And
[11:31:03] instead they are reporting.
[11:31:06] >> Molly has a comment. 
 >> For those of you that don't
[11:31:17] know, we have roughly 400 employees
[11:31:19] -- over 400 ish at any given
[11:31:21] time. For context.
 >> It doesn't make me feel better. I guess if I could add
[11:31:29] some context, when we asked staff to report their hours
[11:31:35] spent, they also reported -- I can go back to the slide -- they estimated their time
[11:31:40] preparing the reports come with requirements, supporting LEAs, communicating,
[11:31:46] validating data, results and analysis and to Lisa's point come a lot of these staff it's
[11:31:52] like a major part of their job and always has been. And I
[11:31:56] think that does contribute.
 >> We have a question or comment from Member Earl.
[11:32:01] >> I'm trying to balance this out. Of course we're going to have more. This is literally
[11:32:07] what we do. We accept the reporting. We file it. That is
[11:32:12] the job. I'm trying to balance out the job that we should be doing and what's too much.
[11:32:18] Because this is what we should be doing and some regards to
[11:32:24] what extent is the question.
 >> In addition to this which
[11:32:29] is not included in the slides but is in the report, I did ask staff members the
[11:32:35] continued relevance of the report. So if they were in charge would they continue to
[11:32:40] keep this report going? I've asked them to give recommendations for improving
[11:32:45] the report or the requirement and that information I can
[11:32:50] pull up for us. There's also examples of what staff said.
[11:32:55] And it is one of my discussions in the report to say that if we think about
[11:33:02] -- the highest level of frustration ones, I think would be really helping out a
[11:33:07] lot of staff in LEAs. It's just a few double Dutch it seems like problematic
[11:33:13] reporting requirements.
[11:33:16] Member Davis you still have a question?
[11:33:21] Just a note that the 60% that are not frustrated are probably the ones hired
[11:33:27] specifically for a federal program and compliance. It is
[11:33:32] their job to do this. But there's a lot of the other
[11:33:36] ones too.
[11:33:48] >> Yeah okay okay. Go ahead.
[11:33:48] So for USBE -- these are the requirements which USBE must submit tied to the state or
[11:33:55] federal government. There's
[11:33:57] 276. Here's a sample of the responsible sections that staff reported. The
[11:34:06] legislative basis -- so the Davis point, a lot of federal
[11:34:11] code -- and then level of frustration
[11:34:17] -- and USBE staff reported
[11:34:19] spending approximately 99,029 hours and 30 minutes on these reporting requirements
[11:34:27] which is the equivalent of 47.5 FTE.
[11:34:35] 000. There you go.
[11:34:52] >> Thank you.
[11:34:52] Yeah. That's -- and all of these charts are in the
[11:34:54] report.
[11:35:07] >> (inaudible)
[11:35:12] >> As you can imagine from the catalog, there is a lot of
[11:35:12] information we can pull now. A lot of it is -- in addition to information findings pulled
[11:35:17] from the catalog, there's also discussion of some key reporting requirement challenges pulled from
[11:35:22] discussions with LEA and staff members. One of these is a lack of reporting
[11:35:28] centralization. A concern that there's no one single source of truth when it comes to
[11:35:32] reporting for LEA or USBE. LEA a mentions they struggle to
[11:35:38] find submission guidelines, deadlines, what's required of
[11:35:42] them. USBE sections also operate independently from each other and there's not clear ways for different
[11:35:49] sections to cooperate or coordinate due dates and
[11:35:53] things like that. There's some knowledge loss and turnover
[11:35:59] concerns when LEA staff leaves, finding that information and making sure they have the right contacts
[11:36:05] can be a challenge as well as within USBE and there's a lack
[11:36:11] of public and legislative transparency. There's no way for the public to really see all the reporting requirements
[11:36:17] or the legislature. Another key reporting requirement
[11:36:21] challenge is the volume of new legislative mandated reporting
[11:36:26] requirements. The next is that the legislative mandating quick
[11:36:33] reporting requirement turnaround times. A lot of
[11:36:37] LEAs and USBE staff mentioned that it is difficult when there's a quick turnaround for
[11:36:43] reporting requirements, especially one that needs to be in a student information or collected through student
[11:36:48] information systems and it often leads to Stop gap solutions which means before it can be fully integrated
[11:36:55] into the Sis it needs to be in a Qualtrics survey or Google
[11:36:59] Form survey and sent out in different ways. And just
[11:37:05] doubles the workload because it's two different ways to collect information that we
[11:37:09] need to work on. Okay so in response to these,
[11:37:16] to the findings that we have and the discussion and the report, there are five
[11:37:21] recommendations. This one is to the legislature. The recommended action is that the
[11:37:27] legislature explicitly incorporate LEA administrative
[11:37:31] burden into each fiscal amount. The key benefits are that there will be increased
[11:37:37] transparency for taxpayers and policy makers and it closes that communication gap between
[11:37:42] USBE and LEA when trying to estimate sometimes those
[11:37:46] fiscal impacts. The second recommendation is
[11:37:53] that the legislature allocate 200 000 ongoing funding, for USBE to procure a dynamic
[11:38:00] software solution that would transition the requirement catalog from a static
[11:38:05] spreadsheet into an accessible interactive platform. This
[11:38:10] would increase visibility and personalization they could use that spreadsheet to track the
[11:38:16] reporting requirements they must submit. It also prove USBE stability internally
[11:38:22] different staff members can see how many due dates are already there in October for
[11:38:26] LEA a and how can I make sure that the same staff member is not submitting to back to back
[11:38:32] or not on the same day, that
[11:38:36] kind of interagency work. It also would help us with some upgraded catalog content. A
[11:38:43] lot of what LEAs asked for is a calendar which is easy and a lot of software solutions
[11:38:56] -- and the third recommendation
[11:38:56] is that double dashes for the legislature and USBE. That they adopt a standardized
[11:38:58] evaluation process to assess reporting requirements during legislative drafting,
[11:39:04] rulemaking, periodic reviews and report elimination
[11:39:08] decisions. So key benefits we see here are that it would
[11:39:14] make transparent what the benefits are of the new reporting requirements and it would become transparent with
[11:39:21] the costs would be of any new reporting requirement. And something of this assessment
[11:39:26] could consider or some of the things this assessment would consider would be the impact of information on stakeholder
[11:39:32] actions -- are people going to use this to make decisions? And the effort -- how many
[11:39:38] people will have to put in information on how many levels and how much work would that
[11:39:43] be?
[11:39:46] The fourth recommendation that is for USBE, that USBE adopt
[11:39:53] policies and procedures to standardize the reporting requirement and collection
[11:39:58] process. The key benefits we can see is consistency across USBE. There are some sections
[11:40:05] that do a great job communicating with LEAs about
[11:40:10] when things are due and having that ongoing communication and being clear about what's
[11:40:15] mandatory and optional and providing with a lot of clarity and there are some
[11:40:20] sections that struggle and they're not consistent over different sections. And this
[11:40:27] would get a lot of clarity for LEAs as well. The final
[11:40:32] recommendation is that the board develop a legislative
[11:40:37] request to support standardization of the process
[11:40:40] for data collection. This is recommended legislation and it would
[11:40:46] establish 18 month minimum implementation timeline before new collections are enforced and this would help stop that
[11:40:53] stop gap solution and we would make sure when we implement a new data collection it's been
[11:41:00] rigorously -- and really clear
[11:41:03] what we're asking for. We'd also require LEA a administrative burden and
[11:41:09] software vendor costs to be consistently evaluated and included on legislative fiscal
[11:41:15] notes. And adopt a statutory reporting requirements,
[11:41:20] evaluation assessment to screen for proposed data collections during the
[11:41:25] drafting process. Those are the five
[11:41:31] recommendations.
[11:41:42] >> And in your backup for the statutory -- both the statutory and the funding requests, those have already
[11:41:43] been completed and uploaded. That would be a board decision
[11:41:47] to move those forward. There's more information on what that would look like in the kind of
[11:41:52] legislation we're asking for. I would also see that the funding -- so in the recommendation number one the
[11:41:59] funding is software solutions where this catalog would be huge because we already --
[11:42:05] during the board meeting we have made her charts out of
[11:42:10] date because there have been new reporting requirements discussed and changed during board meeting and so it's
[11:42:15] really important that there be some sort of solution that can be easily updated. I would say that same software solution be
[11:42:21] used for a lot of things including even like a upac
[11:42:25] thing or several other things we talked about today, could also use that same software solution. I want to thank you
[11:42:31] for this time and to Trish and all the staff that made this report possible. This has been
[11:42:38] so hugely helpful and I'm grateful. Thank you for you
[11:42:41] all. 
 >> In case you wanted to make a motion but no motion is required.
[11:42:52] >> Member Davis?
[11:42:52] >> I moved that we receive the report's -- the
[11:42:58] recommendations and forward them to the legislature and
[11:43:03] add the words or appropriate
[11:43:07] box and it recommendation number -- is at one? And
[11:43:14] recommendation number one. If I get a second I will speak briefly to the motion.
[11:43:22] >> Let's make sure we type it
[11:43:24] up so it's the correct motion.
[11:44:00] >> This section is probably
[11:44:00] better --
[11:44:16] >> Member Davis this is --
[11:44:16] your motion?
 >> Yes.
[11:44:16] So we're going to get it in context for other board
[11:44:19] members to see.
[11:44:33] So the motion is that the
[11:44:37] board receive the report and -- to the legislature and to add or an appropriate section
[11:44:43] to recommendation one in context that would read that the legislature explicitly incorporate LEA administrative
[11:44:48] burden into each bill's fiscal note or an appropriate section. Any discussion to
[11:44:54] this motion? Would you like to speak to it? Thank you.
[11:44:59] >> This is presented to our person requirements ongoing
[11:45:02] task force this last week and that task force also supported this and had no objections to
[11:45:09] send this to the legislature. I want to make a note about this -- about really
[11:45:15] incorporating the burden into the bill drafts. We actually
[11:45:21] have been doing that. Our staff spends a lot of hours doing it but legislatures have
[11:45:26] told us they just don't read it and they don't necessarily consider it if it's not
[11:45:31] something that they're going to pay for. Molly and I, we told you we met with Jonathan
[11:45:37] and members of the Legislative -- Analyst's Office a year ago -- and he said I've never
[11:45:44] really thought about this. The legislature is not going to
[11:45:47] fund it, we just put no additional burden. But he said for example, we have a $12
[11:45:54] million training requirement that adds LEA burden -- who has to pay for that? Property
[11:45:59] taxes, local folks. He said we have never included that in
[11:46:04] our documentation. So the more we keep reminding and sharing
[11:46:11] this information in different ways, because that's what our task force asks us to share
[11:46:16] last year, the more they will start to hear the message and there can be some systemic
[11:46:21] changes over time. That makes sense.
[11:46:27] >> Let's go ahead and queue this up for a vote.
[11:47:09] >> That passes unanimously. Is that it for 10.1? Thank you
[11:47:09] Trish. Let's move to 10.2, a request for statutory changes.
[11:47:14] Member Davis? 
 >> I move to postpone items
[11:47:26] 10.2, 10.3 and 10.42 tomorrow afternoon.
[11:47:27] >> We have done 10.4. Let's do 10.2 and three.
[11:47:33] >> Why don't we go in backwards order?
 >> Because your chair did that on accident. Thanks for
[11:47:38] calling that out.
[11:47:41] >> Okay. So the motion is to postpone 10.2, 10.3 to
[11:47:48] tomorrow's carryover business. There's a second. Do you want
[11:47:54] to speak to that?
 >> Maybe 11.
 >> I want to bring this to the
[11:47:59] board, what do we want to do.
[11:48:01] We still have 
 >> Let's do everything up to the executive -- and then
[11:48:14] executive session I think is
[11:48:14] what we have. Remaining.
[11:48:32] Everything would go for tomorrow we would go straight
[11:48:34] into executive session right now.
 >> Are you amending your motion then?
[11:48:39] >> I think so. It makes sense.
>> Okay.
[11:48:52] So the motion then is to
[11:48:54] postpone items 10.2, 10.3 and item 11 to tomorrow's carry
[11:49:01] over business. From what I'm understanding there's no
[11:49:05] appetite to carry over the executive session. Am I
[11:49:10] understanding that correctly? So that's the motion. Was that
[11:49:15] seconded? We do have a second? I don't know if we need to
[11:49:20] speak to that Cindy. Okay. Is there any opposition to this?
[11:49:27] Let's do that. And with that motion passing, unanimously,
[11:49:34] we will take a couple minutes and get ready for executive. I
[11:49:39] know I am --
[11:49:44] okay. My bad. This is like a
[11:49:49] different -- different way of doing it. I'm seeking a motion that the board go into
[11:49:56] executive session for the purpose of discussing any of the following -- persons character, competence or
[11:50:01] health or in litigation. So move? Thank you. Jones says
[11:50:07] second. Okay. And now I do a roll call vote. Member Boggess
[11:50:12] is yes. Member Boothe? Member Bollinger? Member Brendan?
[11:50:17] Member Davis? Member Earl?
[11:50:21] Member Green? Member Hall? Member Kelley? It's yes.
[11:50:29] Member Kerry? Member Longacre? No? Member Lear? Member Reale
[11:50:36] is absent. Member Wood is yes. I'm a yes. We'll take a few
[11:50:41] minutes and get into executive.
 >> Emily is the new not rule
[11:50:47] follower.
 >> She took over.
[11:50:50] >> I think dissent is healthy.
[11:51:01] >> Okay.
[11:51:09] >> Just stand up for a little
[11:51:09] bit. Sometimes that's what you --
[11:51:41] [background chatter]