Board of Education · Work Session · May 14, 2026

Good evening everyone. The Durham Public Schools Board of Education work session is now in session. At this time, we wish to extend a warm welcome to everyone who is joining us this evening. The purpose of this meeting is to inform our parents, staff, and constituents about the work aligned with our mission to embrace, educate, and empower every student to innovate, serve, and lead.

The interpreters for tonight are Karen Reyes and Iet Perez. Thank you for taking the time to join us. This meeting is being interpreted live into Spanish with a delay of a few seconds. We kindly ask that you please pace yourself, pause between ideas, and speak clearly so that everyone can follow along. The first item on our agenda is a moment of silence.

All right, thank you. Next we have agenda review and approval. Madam chair, I would ask that we move item 4A, the CIP and bond update to our May 28th meeting due to um illness of staff. >> Second.

>> All right, it's been moved and seconded to move the CIP and bond update to May 28th. Is there any other discussion? All in favor, please say I. I >> I.

And it passes 50. Um we have two board members who will be joining us a bit um just a few minutes late. And um now I will take a motion for the agenda. >> I move approval of the agenda as amended. >> Second. It's been moved and properly seconded to

approve the agenda as amended. Is there any other discussion? All those in favor? Is there discussion?

All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> I.

It passes 5-0. The next item is our board of education month meeting minutes from April 9th, 2026. Move approval of the agenda April 29 minutes April 29th, 2026. >> Second, I'm sorry, April 9th.

>> April 9th, 2026. >> Second. >> All right. There's been a motion to approve the meeting minutes from April 9th, 2026 by um Miss Harold Goff, seconded by Vice Chair Rogers. Any other discussion?

>> All right. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I.

>> I. And it was approved. 6. >> The next item on our agenda is public comment.

And we will um let me we will read the rules for public comment and then we will begin um with each person having u one minute to speak. Um a quick review of the rules. Please um first please state your name. If speaking for an organization please state your name and the name of the organization.

Second, speakers are asked to present their comments in um in the time of one minute. When the yellow light comes on, you have 30 seconds left to start winding up your remarks. When the red light comes on, it will beep, which indicates your time is up. Complaints about named staff, students, or parents should not be voiced in open session.

However, we are very interested in hearing your concerns with regard to public education, the safety of students, or to the operation of the school system. Finally, board members will listen carefully and consider the comments, but we do not engage with in a discussion with speakers. So, with that, and I'll read the first few. Um, the first speaker is Jennifer Canol.

Please do forgive u mispronunciations of names. Um, second Sophia Canol and third Adam Valentine or B or something like that. Hi, I'm Jennifer Kendall. Um, I'm a parent from Barton Elementary and I'm going to seat my time to my daughter Sophia. >> Hello, my name is Sophia Kendall from Burton Elementary School, fifth grade. My reading teacher, Miss Dwire, is from Jamaica and she was recently informed that she may lose her employment visa.

Miss Dwire has pushed me to succeed this year and she makes sure she gives each student the attention they need. I personally believe that having international teachers enhances the curriculum for every student. I have had many international teachers all of whom have helped me and my classmates grow. Their different viewpoints help us as a community.

One of my favorite teachers ever, Miss Palasios is also an international teacher and she taught me so much. Also, we have many multicultural students at our school and our international teachers can connect with these students through shared language and culture. The standard of teaching is not lessened. In fact, I feel it is increased by having these teachers in our school. I hope you will reconsider your decision regarding your the dis discontinuation of the employment visas for our teacher.

No one of my family will go down without being fought for. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you so much. And next we have Adam Valentine or something like that.

And then Ella Ruth Vanheine and then uh Carrie Dwire. >> Um yes. Uh my name is Adam Vanheim uh with with Burton Elementary and I'm going to yield my time to uh my wife Taylor and >> me too. Say I'm van.

Good evening. My name is Taylor Vanheind and I'm a parent of a first grader at Burton Elementary. I wanted to come here

tonight to ask you to please reconsider discontinuing the H1B visa sponsorship program. Burton Elementary is an international balorate or IB school. From the IB website I will quote the international balorat is a global leader in international education. Their goal is to foster global thinkers.

Burton achieves this not just through textbooks but through our international educators. Burton is currently Burnt currently has 31 teachers and two of those teachers are being forced out this year due to this decision. There will be two more next year. In total that is 13% of teachers lost at Burton.

This will include the music teacher. I have spent the last two years working very closely with the music teacher. I myself was a music teacher for nine years teaching in North Carolina and California. And so I was excited to work with my own child's music teacher and help her in whatever way she needed. She welcomed me into her classroom and we have um been a great team and friends ever since. I've been

backstage and in the classroom for music clubs, winter programs, musicals, and talent shows. In fact, as soon as we leave this meeting, our teachers and administrators who are here tonight will be heading straight back to Burton for tonight's spring talent show, which is why that teacher could not be here tonight. She is at school after hours prepping for the show. Through working with this teacher, I have been I have seen the profound impact she has made on our students with music, but also her Jamaican heritage.

I have watched our children light up while learning traditional Jamaican songs, dances, and games. The best teachers I have worked with bring their entire self into the classroom. This teacher brings her entire self and the entire island of Jamaica into every lesson, song, and rehearsal. When she shares the traditions of her home, she isn't just teaching notes on a scale. She is showing authentic representation of the IB idea of global learning that Burton values and DPS claims to value. These teachers have been chosen to spend their lives and careers educating our children

and enriching our communities. They jumped through every hoop to be here on their visas and were previously promised the security that their lives won't be upended by the decision back in October. To then turn around and reverse that decision with no justification given is completely unfair and detrimental to not only our schools and students but to DPS and our community. We will lose 240 teachers in DPS.

I have to ask, was this a political decision, a financial decision, and did you have the best interest of our students and community in mind? Taking these teachers away is a disservice to our Thank you. net. Thank you so much. Um I think maybe we did not yet get to Carol Dwire Carville Dwire and then we have Tony Young and then Siamada Lopez.

>> Good afternoon everyone. My name is Carl Dwire. I'm from Burton Elementary. I'm seeding my time to Tony Young.

>> Good afternoon everyone. I'm Tony Young and I'm seing my time to Miss Lopez. >> Hello, I'm Miss Lopez and I'm seating my time to Mr. Olland.

>> It can only Okay. Yeah. So, um there can be um seating of time two times um for a total of um three minutes. So, Would anyone else like to use then a minute of their time?

Okay. >> Greetings, board. Thank you, Dr. Lewis.

Thank you, board, for listening to me today. My name is Brandon Daniel. I'm a fifth grade teacher at Burton Elementary School. I came to the board a couple of

months ago to speak on behalf of our school and our international teachers. I only had a minute, so I didn't get to fully express what was in my heart, and that's why I'm here today. Burton Elementary is a special place. We have been designated as a national school of merit.

We are a blue ribbon lighthouse school of excellence. We truly are a lighthouse that shines for our students and our community. We guide and keep safe those that are in our care and help meet their needs every day. We do this as a team.

We do not have the financial resources that other schools may have, but we make up for it with our people, our human resources. And I'm writing this email because or writing this or doing this speech because sorry we're about to lose some of those resources. My colleague Miss Carll Dwire has been an international teach with us for the past 10 years. She has ingrained herself in our community and helped our students reach historical heights.

Her own children have attended and still attend Durham public schools. One will hopefully graduate in our international balor program in a couple of years. Our

fifth graders under her care exceed performance expectations with 80% or above proficiency in English language arts for fifth grade based on grade exams for North Carolina EOG. A few years ago, 90% of our students passed those same English language arts end of exam tests. This year on our end of test, as we get ready for our EOGS, the same thing happened again. So, we have an excellent teacher based on many factors.

student data and student testimonials can confirm it. I invite you to come and watch one day and see the amazing things that she does. She is a lighthouse and she helps build lighouses in our school. Our students glow and they guide their peers, their friends, and their siblings.

She has helped us build something special at Burton. When we do not build our lighthouse with bricks, we build it with our people. So, I heard the word equity used when discussing the retention of our international teachers. Sometimes I lose hope on equity. I know some schools and some districts have more. That has

not deterred us at Burton. Equity to us means fighting harder, limited resources, and doing more with less just to be part of the same conversation. We accept that challenge every day because we don't fight to be recognized. We do it because our students deserve it.

Our students deserve a teacher like Miss Dwire because she shines the light on them and they in turn shine for all of us. So, I know budgets can influence decisions, but we have our own funding for our teachers. We can self-fund this. We just need creative solutions with you.

We're not asking for money, just helpful solutions. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. And I think we skipped Robert Olland.

Um, my name's Robert Oshin. Uh, I planned on seeding my time to Brandon Daniel. I'll just seed my time to the next speaker. >> Okay. Thank you. >> From Burton.

>> Amanda Bass and then Denise Bulock. >> Hi, I'm Amanda Bass from Burton. I'll be seating my time to Denise Bulock. Then Denise will have three minutes.

>> My name is G. Uh, mine's here from Burden. >> I'm sorry. Hold on one second.

>> Denise is >> Okay. Okay. Correct. And then and what was your name?

Um, I think I have someone. Is there someone Paula Azi? >> What? >> Azi, I'm sorry.

Hold on one second. Okay. Well, um, I'm not sure. I think

you might be a little bit further down the list in the red. Yeah. Okay. or you may sit down of course but I just yeah we we will come back to where are we now okay hold on one second we maybe someone else we are at you would have three minutes would you like to speak okay to Emily Chafield okay and you can have three minutes Okay.

Okay. Okay. I thought Deni Denise Pula

can she concede her time to in the red and then she conceded her time to you? Okay. So, oh, okay. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. All right. Well, good evening everyone.

My name is Emily Scoffield. I'm the new school counselor at Burton Elementary. Um I appreciate everyone kind of allowing their time for me to speak today. Um so as we know Burton Magnet Elementary we're an IB school.

We're an international bachelorette school. According to the Doran public school website the goal of the IB curriculum is to develop students into adults who are confident, critical and independent thinkers with a global perspective. I really want to highlight that phrase global perspective. Discontinuing the visa sponsorship for our international teachers will directly impact our ability to provide our students with that global perspective

which is promised to our students and families through our magnet program. At Burton Magnet School alone, we currently have two teachers impacted by the discontinuation of the visa sponsorship this year. Both of whom have demonstrated such strong student achievement data every year. We have two additional teachers who will be in the same situation next year.

Many charter schools are willing to pay for this visa sponsorship. That means that DPS will be losing highly qualified teachers to neighboring charter schools. There are currently 264 DPS teachers serving on this international visas. I beg all members of the board and everyone in a position of power to consider the ramifications that our schools and students will face by discontinuing the service of these 264 teachers who are here on this international visa. Our students, staff

and communities will never be the same if we lose these impactful educators who are able to again share their global perspective. Again, part of our magnet program is that global perspective. So, I beg you all to kind of consider that. Thank you all for your time.

>> Thank you. Next, we have Nshua Orai and then Rasheed Elen and Nick Burns. Joshua Arabi. I'm a parent and a teacher at Burton Elementary and I saved my time to Uh my my name is Rashidto Gang.

Uh and I'm from Burden. I am the student council president at Burton Elementary. I'm here tonight to ask you to keep supporting and sponsoring international teachers in in our school. Students from all around the district are able to learn from people

from all around the world. International teachers bring culture, language, traditions, and different teaching styles in our classroom that help students see beyond where where we live and learn about the world around us. But international teachers also bring something else that is very important, their expertise and knowledge. During my time at Burden, I've been in two classrooms with international teachers.

Because of them, I learned about countries like Ecuador and Jamaica. I learned new vocabulary and phrases, different cultures, and new ways of learning. These expertise helped me grow not only academically, but also personally. My reading, spelling, handwriting, vocabulary, and co and confidence improved.

Their teaching did not take away from GPS curriculum. They made it better. Before international program burden was a D school. Now we are B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B School International teachers

applied their skills expertise into the curriculum already being taught in our school and they also helped raise AC academic expectations to a more global level. They encourage students to think bigger, work harder, and learn about the world beyond our community. burden would not feel the same without diversity, knowledge, and expertise these teachers bring to our school. If you stop the program, thank you very much.

And please do share your comments um via email if you'd like. We have Nick Burns, Emily Khan, Javana Lewis. >> Good evening, members of the board. >> My name is Nick Burns. I'm the proud father of a fourth grader and a seventh grader who have thrived at Burton Elementary. I'm here tonight to ask for a full reversal of the decision to stop sponsoring H-1B visas for international

teachers. International teachers at Burton have had an incredibly positive impact on both of my daughters. Next year, my youngest daughter, Fiona, and her classmates have the opportunity to learn from Miss Dwire, an international teacher, a brilliant, highly regarded fifth grade teacher. And now, because of this decision, Miss Dwire and others are being forced out.

I understand that this is a return to a pre-COVID policy, but good leadership adapts. If we don't support our international teachers long term, we'll lose them to the charter schools who are already offering the visa sponsorships we're denying them. We'll lose some of our best people, and our kids will pay the price for that turnover. Our teachers are committed to our district.

Removing their support mid-career impacts the stability of our schools. I respectfully ask that you fully reverse this policy and protect the educators who are protecting our kids' futures. Thank you for our time. >> Thank you.

So, next we have Emily Khan, Javannia Lewis, and then Sarah Arthur. Good evening. My name is Emily Khan, and I'm the parent of two girls in Durham Public Schools, one at CC Spalding Elementary

and one at Lakewood Monastery Middle. I'm here tonight because I watched a family in crisis get left behind by this district repeatedly. Two students at CC Spalding who who qualified for McKenna Vento protections. That means that they have a legal right to transportation to their homeschool during a housing crisis when their family was displaced to a motel and then a family member's apartment.

No bus ever came. The routing process was slow, bureaucratic, and completely unable to keep pace with a rapidly changing situation. And now that family has stable housing with a relative, the bus still doesn't come. Last year, roughly 1300 DPS students qualified for McKenna Vento protections. While we don't know yet how many children qualified for this school year, the number has increased every year since co I am asking this board to commission a public accounting of the McKini Vento transportation compliance so that this community can see exactly where the system is falling short and hold itself accountable. Thank you.

>> Next we have Javana Lewis, Sarah Arthur, and then Nancy Romero. Good evening, Javana Lewis from Epic Empower Parents and Community. I really miss these public comments. Thank you for your time.

I stand with Burton for sure. Um Dr. King, two years ago, you let us know on the board that we were missing restorative practices in a policy. 1, it is there.

Also, there is the implementation plan to consult principal supervisors before children in kindergarten elementary school are suspended and we appreciate that change as well. Out of school suspension limits with two more serious offenses. Thank you for moving forward with what we asked for for doing a policy committee and also giving community input. We appreciate that.

I do want to ask you to stretch a little bit more. Three quick ask. Stretch to include third graders. They should not be disrupted. There's not a big

difference between eight and nine years old. Remove the words engage in persistent behaviors. Persistent. Thank you.

Please of course email your comments. Um, all right. We have Sarah Arthur, Nancy Romero, Lenor Champion. Right.

My name is Sarah Arthur. I'm a parent of this kindergartenner at Burton Elementary School. Um, I'm here. Obviously, we're all very deeply concerned um with the decision to stop sponsoring visa renewals for international teachers.

We chose Burton because it's an IB school and we loved seeing that Burton took that m mission seriously, not just through its curriculum, but through the diverse backgrounds, cultures, languages, and experiences represented among its teachers. We're very troubled by this decision. Um, these teachers are not interchangeable staffing placeholders.

They're part of what makes our school feel authentic and meaningful and alive. Um, and as a parent of a child who's just beginning his public schools experience, I really also care about stability. Um, children build trust with these teachers. We build trust with the schools.

and at a time when public schools are already losing excellent educator. Thank you. We have Nancy Romero, Lenora Champion, Michael. Sorry to read the last name. Okay. Nancy is Nancy.

Hi, good evening. My name is Nancy. I'm in here in the name of my daughter that she attends to hold elementary school and I'm here because I have few concerns the things that happened to my daughter and one of the thing that have me really concerned about it because two student from the school uh closed my daughter in one of the bathrooms and nobody had done anything. And on the incident that happened in the bathroom, she was touched inappropriately in her private parts by the two girls and nobody done anything to help her out. And now another thing that happened is another student poke her eye when they sees her and I had to take her to the emergency room to the urgent care and nobody had done anything either.

And one of the other um incident that happened it was in the bus when another student punched her mouth and one of her tooth came out and she get home with uh bloody blood in her shirt and nobody have help me and do anything to solve any of these incidents. And based on this incident, my nobody helped my daughter. And what I'm requesting is I want those two kids that did that to my daughter in the bathroom to be exposed to stay away from my daughter like to have like some type of restriction order from her from my daughter because now my daughter needs some type of psychology help and therapy because every time she keep remember all these incidents and is very

traumatizing. When the first incident happened, uh we make a report to the Durham Police Department and they told me that they need to do a forensic exam to the student and and they send a referral to do the hospital. They haven't uh sent me any information and they haven't seen her. But now that um what that what they are saying is like they not now if they do it is not going to be having the same effect.

Thank you. Gracias. Gracias for comfort.

And um I want to ask um a member of the administration to follow up ministad something like that. Danielle Urban Danielle Urban. Greetings board members, um, superintendent. I'm Lenor Champion, lead occupational therapist for Durham Public Schools.

This one of my colleagues, Teresa Jones. She's another occupational therapist here. Um, first I want to thank you for your service. I don't envy you, your jobs.

I think you have a lot of hard work to do. Um, but I just want to give you a small window into how it's been going for our Durham Public Schools occupational therapy team this year. Um, you may remember that I came to the board uh meeting earlier this school year and mentioned that a third of our OT team uh resigned over the summer. Um,

this made a difficult start for the year and many in instances of missed federally mandated student services. Um, and late this past week, I received an email from one of our OT team members. She wanted to reach out and share her experience of this school year as compared to the 2425 school year. As the numbers are significant, let me just share this one therapist experience during the 2425 school year.

She completed Thank you. And please please do send your comments to us. Um the next is Michael. Yes, probably.

Um I don't have another Michael Israel. Um, and then Danielle Irvin and then Patricia Russ. >> Good evening, board. Good evening, members of the board.

My name is Michael Israel. I serve as a PTO president at Burton Elementary. Uh, also as a parent,

obviously. I'm here tonight not as a policy expert, but as a parent and community member who deeply cares about our students, our teachers, and the future of Durham Public Schools. At Burton, our international teachers not are not just filling positions. They are dedicated, deeply cared about educators who have built lasting relationships with our children and families.

They stay late, support students beyond the classroom, and create environments where kids feel safe, challenged, and valued. Now, some of those teachers may be forced to leave not because of performance or lack of need, but because DPS may no longer support their visa renewals. That is heartbreaking for students and discouraging for families and educators who invested themselves in the district. Consistency matters, relationships matter, and great teachers matter.

>> Thank you. >> We have Danielle Irvin, Patricia Russ, Rob Fields. >> I am Danielle Irvin. I'm a physical

therapist here and I'm here as on behalf of our department and especially Christy who can't be here today as she usually is. Um she's been she and we have been fighting for the last couple years since the raises to um that were taken away to just get our our PTO and KODS um the raises that we know we should have that are appropriate for our positions. We are masters and doctorates and um so many are leaving. Even PTS have positions vacant now that we cannot fill because of the salary.

And um Germ strategic plan talks about providing an excellent school for every student and we are part of making that um happen by helping our kids safely access their school every day. And if we cannot recruit and retain professionals needed, we cannot do that. Um so we're here I know budgets are difficult um but we're here asking to just to find the money somewhere to help um recruit and retain some people. And please don't change the meet and confer policy because it's super important for all staff.

Thank you. >> Thank you. We have Patricia Russ, Rob

Fields, Greg Whitaker. >> Hi, I'm Patricia Russk and I teach at Little River. The experts were called the findings concrete. Made recommendations clear.

Pull the carpets. Strip paper from the walls. Yet nine months later, solutions still stall. The test confirmed questionable air quality, mold present.

When will solutions become permanent and fix and replace temporary fixes? Children cannot pause their lungs while systems are left unfixed. Teachers cannot hold their breath and teach concurrently. Every day this remains unresolved.

The method becomes clearer. The documented concerns are not guaranteed actions. Resolution is possible. Leadership can choose to stop the delay. God equips you fully to handle the difficulties that are your

responsibilities. Tonight I ask not for another air quality test, not for another. Thank you. Rob Fields, Greg Whitaker, Dr.

Jennifer Girish. Good evening. My name is Rob Fields. I'm a DPS grandparent.

I came here originally to talk about the capital improvement plan, but since you're not going to talk about that tonight, um I started to leave. Uh then I heard everybody talking about Burton. If you'll take all of your elementary schools and if you'll rank them from the schools who have the demographics that have historically been most challenging from the schools who have economically disadvantaged student populations to the schools who don't have face those challenges and then if you'll rank the performance in reading in elementary school of those students you'll see something that Burton stands out. Burton

will be at the top of both of those lists, which is unusual. Usually those lists are reversed. If these parents are asking for something for Burton, y'all ought to be listening. You ought to be listening hard because whatever they're doing at Burton, you ought to figure it out and bottle it.

>> Thank you, >> Greg Whitaker. Jennifer Dr. Jennifer Girish, and Alexander Bayis. Hi, my name is Greg Whitaker.

I see my time to Dr. Jennifer Girish. >> Do not start that timer yet. Do not I have Please restart that timer.

Not even up here when they started it. Hello. Started. Hello, my name is Jennifer Gerish and

I'm here um in my role as a representative of Durm Advocates for Exceptional Children. Um I am the co-chair of the Durham Advocates for Exceptional Children Committee on Suspensions. I'm also the mom of three DPS students with disabilities. While I'm no stranger to you and to making public comment, um I do not stand up here alone.

Durham Advocates for Exceptional Children represents a large growing diverse group of family caregivers and advocates seeking to lift up the needs of our children with disabilities. There are two policies that will be read tonight for the first time on seclusion and restraint in the code of conduct. First, we want to thank the board and Dr. Lewis and his team for their leadership in improving these policies.

They are improved. We have sent to your board email documents that detail our copious amount of feedback and guidance on these policies. As parents of children with disabilities, these policies are deeply personal to me. Um like many uh of our members in Durham Advocates for Exceptional Children, these traumatizing

disciplinary actions are used against my children and our children of other members. Um our children with disabilities are more likely to be suspended. They're more likely to be held in seclusion. They're more likely to be restrained.

Um, these rates are amplified if our children happen to also be black and of Hispanic origin. My ask tonight is simple. Please continue to target protections for students with disabilities. Please keep centering on them.

to take the opportunity to make these policies clearer for everyone, to bring them closer to federal guidance and best practices, to rely on evidence-based practices such as why limiting principal supervisor oversight to suspensions in those in second grade. There's no evidence. It should be uh you know, at least for all elementary age kids. Explicitly prohibit tying, taping, and strapping students down, please. And use our own data to monitor how these policies are changing to impact Thank you.

We have Alexandra Vares Gabriella Maradiaga Jim Spara. Good evening board. Good evening administrators. Thank you all for everything you do.

These are hard times. These are times with I mean the levels of intensity and stress and the levels of overload possibly unwarranted. And so just want to take a moment to breathe with you and just say that I've been in your seat and that I know that we're all working towards serving, embracing, educating, empowering every student to innovate, serve, and lead. And one of the things that is hurting my heart is a level at which it seems like you know instead of us moving uh down the path of of of

amongst ourselves least restriction definitely not against the forces we are fighting forces that are diminishing public education and funding. We we have to fight those but the the level at which we're not supporting each other is affecting things. And so anyways, >> thank you Gabriella Mariaga Jim Far. Um I don't think Gabriella is here.

Jim. Oh, sorry. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Dr.

Gabriella Maradiaga Paneayoti. I'm a pediatrician here in Durham. Been practicing for 20 years and I am here to share my experience as a professional taking care of children and as a mom of two middle schoolers in DPS. In my time in practice, I saw mental health issues

every day in children. They ran the gamut from my stomach hurts all the time to I can't go to school, mental health issues around and they show up in all sorts of ways in children to the extreme of cutting and actual suicidal behavior. In medicine, there is a concept called toxic stress which refers to chronic changes in the neurological structure of the brain and the nervous system. And when children experience toxic stress, which is the cumulative effect of stressors of many kinds as children, we please please email us your comments.

Thank you. >> Our final speaker is Jim Savara. >> Good evening. I'm Jim Savara, co-chair

of the policy committee of the Coalition for Affordable Housing and Transit. As you know, we are very committed to promoting affordable housing close to the rail trail that's that's going to be developed. Having examined all the possible publicly owned sites, only one stands out as an outstanding uh location that could that could have a large project, the northern three acres of the Durham School of the Arts. when students are gone from there.

It is just one block away from the rail trail. We're asking the board of education indicate your willingness to sell the property to the county for this purpose. Once that's done, then we can shift our attention to working on the county commissioners uh to get them to agree to do this. Um, some of you feel that maybe you should wait until the new board is in place, but that will take time for them to get to get settled in and ready to make a decision of this kind and the county will have to come back to that group to get their offer accepted. So, I hope you can go ahead and do that very soon.

>> Thank you. >> All right. So, that concludes public comment. Thank every thank you to everyone for coming out this evening.

And the next agenda item is our consent items. Move approval of the consent agenda. Item 2 A, First Hope fire extinguisher contract 2627. Item 2B, First Hope fire extinguisher kitchen hood cleaning contract renewal 2026 2027.

Item 2 C, First Hope Fire Extinguisher Kitchen Hood Inspections Contract Renewal 2026 2027. Item 2 D, First Hope Fire Extinguisher Emergency Exit Light Inspections Contract Renewal 2026 2027. Item 2E, First Hope Fire Extinguisher Life Safety Repairs. Item 2F, Miller

Elevators Monthly Elevator Inspections Contract. Item 2G, Miller Elevators Districtwide Elevator Repairs Contract. Item 2 H, Home Paramount Pest Control Services monthly preventive services contract. Item 2 I, Home Paramount on call and additional services contract.

Item 2J, CTE College and Career Ready Labs purchase. Item 2K, CTE ZSpace learning systems purchase. Item 2L, exceptional children's contract for occupational therapist, speech language pathologist, and physical therapist. Item 2 M, policy 6340, transportation services vehicle contracts, first reading. Item 2 in policy 4270 and 6145 concussion and head injury. First reading.

>> Second. >> All right. It's been um uh moved and properly seconded. Hope hopefully there are no modifications.

We don't want to go through that list again. Um all right. Any other discussion? I'm just kidding.

That's fine if there are modifications. All right. All in favor say I. I.

>> I. It passes 6. All right. And um now we will move on to a board of education item wave policy 22 2231 in order to discuss policy 7215.

And I will pass it to Beyer. Thank you so much. The praises reads, "The 202526 academic year marked a historic milestone as Durham public schools became the first school district in

North Carolina to adopt a meet and confer policy. In June of 2025, prior to the 202526 academic year, the board also adopted policy 2231, establishing a board policy committee, a policy committee of the board. Together, these policies accelerated the challenging and collaborative work of the district. These minor policy edits to policy 7215 meet and confer committee on employee relations are recommended for consideration and discussion by the board.

And then it delineates um specific um recommendations that are here for discussion this evening. Discussion not action. Discussion not action. The first is the notion of adding a cross reference to the policy to policy 2231 that references the

policy committee. The second is some change and and this is my suggestion but I welcome others obviously on any of these need discussion but the chart in C2 actually is not completed and um the language is not consistent throughout. So I think it needs to be made consistent. My suggestion was by specifying percent quote of district employees in every row of that table just to fill it out.

The third is the suggestion to modify the language in D1 about the meeting frequency and procedures to the committee will meet up to six times annually and no more often than once per month and then saying that feedback from the meet and confer. This is an addition. Feedback from the meet and confer committee on the superintendent's proposed budget is encouraged but not must not delay the adoption of the board's budget.

The fourth would be to modify the language in section D1 where it refers twice to the M and C committee to just spell that out and call it the meet and confer committee. The fifth would be the consideration of adding a bullet. the E6 to section E6 meetings will be facilitated by a trained independent facilitator, the chair and vice chair and y'all remember that that is the superintendent and the president of the Durham Association of Educators will select the facilitator and any cost incurred for facilitation will be shared equally between the district and the ERRO. Finally, the suggestion is the modification of section F2. The meet and confer committee may make policy recommendations to the board's policy committee when the meet and confer committee reaches general agreement as signified by signature of the chair and vice chair. That would be the

superintendent and the president of the Durham Association of Educators. And then as that kind of makes things unnecessary, I would suggest deleting the words formal policy recommendations suggested by the committee may be presented to the board if approved by the superintendent. Um as background to this this um there are there are existing conflicts in the meet and confer committee language between the policy committee policy and the meet and confer policy. And um Miss Carda-Auten, board member Carda-Auten has done a remarkable job moving a tremendous amount of policy work through the policy committee. This year we had a all day policy committee retreat on April 30th. this item and

that um tension that that lack of clarity between those two policies was on the agenda for discussion and that did not we we ran out of time before we got to this issue and I would just remind us all that um certification in the meet and confer policy is um must be done and completed by May 31st every year, which is a deadline that is fast approaching. I hope that in our next board meeting or in the upcoming policy meeting or in our new board retreat or here tonight, we could as a group have conversations about how we would rectify some of that language that is not clear and whether

there these ideas that I have brought are of interest to other members of the board, other members of the community, other members of the meet and confer team. These items have been publicly posted and shared on the agenda. I've had conversations with all of you which have been the beginning of conversations and um I brought them with transparency. I bring them in full collaboration.

I make no decisions on my own and never would. I have also um emailed the president of the Durham Association of Educators on Tuesday when the materials were posted. Welcome her feedback. Welcome their feedback. Welcome all feedback as all of us do on anything that this board um should and could do. Um, let me think if there was any other

background to any of that. I do think these are uh fairly minor edits. um and whether this board takes them up, future boards take them up, I believe that it is um a great responsibility to celebrate the work of meet and confer and also look at making sure that that we are clear um in our expectations about how to to be supportive of that. I also attended every meet and confirm meeting except for one when I was sick and I watched it live streamed from my house and so I know of many things to be celebrated there and um and I I I think some improvements that that I think the board can set in um ways going forward. Um, I had not

noticed until I had conversation with um, Miss Carda-Auten that the way we wrote policy committee language is that all policy comes to policy committee. And um, those two policies being intention is both good and bad. But I think we need to figure out if there are any changes um to be made to this that would help it before the next before the certification May 31st. So that's um that's how I'm thinking about this in a way of wanting to hear from all of you, all seven of us in in some kind of robust conversation. Um, yeah, I've had I guess my final point would be I'd have I've had one conversation with one of the incoming board members. I

haven't reached all the rest of them yet, but I'm I welcome those conversations and I'm sure all of us do um going forward. Thank you. >> All right. I saw Miss Carda-Auten.

So in February of 2025, over a year ago, this board met to discuss the possibility of forming a policy committee. And this discussion was in direct response to the work that three board members were doing to create a new policy and to stated concerns around open meetings laws with board members. uh concerns about board members quote unquote shopping a policy outside of public meetings in addition to concerns about work moving forward on a policy before the majority of the board had agreed the policy was a priority. So as a result an ad hoc committee we all live through this just refreshing our memories here. So an ad hoc committee was formed to develop the policy committee policy. This group met

multiple times to meticulously craft a policy which was then adopted in June of last year, June of 2025. So, one item that was debated in conversations about the policy committee policy was about how ideas for new and revised policies come before the board. And in the end, after much debate, we decided on the following two things. One, all requests for a new policy and amendments to the existing policy shall be directed to the policy committee.

And two, the policy committee chair in consultation with the superintendent might recommend that the board review a policy prior to policy committee review when circumstances are exent and emergent require expedited processing. I'd want to note that neither of these two things has happened in the past week when this item was put on the agenda. That is in violation of the policy committee policy. Another key component of the policy committee policy was the timeline for submission of policy ideas

and the prioritization process. I just went back and watched this meeting. We had lots of debates around the dates and then about how prioritization would happen. And in the end, we decided that board members and administration and community members would all submit requests for policy recommendations by August 31st of each year and that then the committee would meet to decide on a prioritization of the policies and bring it back to the board in September.

So we did that. We met on September 18th in the policy committee. We reviewed all the submissions. We followed the prioritization and the criteria in the policy committee policy.

And then we brought that back to the September 25th board meeting where the full board reviewed that and took a vote on the order in which the policies would be addressed in the policy committee. We did the same thing per policy committee policy in February of this year which is also again written to the policy. Each new year we will reear. We'll take new submissions. We'll consider NCSBA

recommendations. Then we'll rear. That was done. We had a robust conversation in public and the board once again voted on a prioritization.

At neither of these different time points was policy 7215 mentioned. It was not submitted to this process. It was not put in the taring despite board members bringing other policies forward and putting those into the taring process. What the board did agree to was the list that we still have.

So we have 12 tier 2 policies remain in our list and 18 tier three policies. So 30 policies that are above that are in the queue in front of 7215. So these policies govern how we and under what circumstances we can physically restrain or we can seclude students. Um these policies include when we can suspend our youngest students. Spoiler alert, we suspended 30

kindergarteners this year already. Most of them have IEPs and most are black or Hispanic. These policies are about expectations for early literacy support around the use of AI. So, no, I don't think that this policy that one board member wants to bring before this board should be bumped ahead of the 30 other policies that are in the line that this board has already decided not once but twice that we want to prioritize others. I I appreciate that history and I appreciate that work there. There's the only correction that I would offer is that it became apparent as two policies

came out of of the meet and confer process. They are a budget transparency policy and an employee grievance policy that we learned that meet and confer does not have board attorney representation at it and so that those policies come and there isn't clarity on what what to do with them. And so you and I had conversations whether there's written documentation or not that that I noticed that that um concern and lack of clarity and tension between those two policies and the need to correct it, which is why it was on the agenda for the retreat. And I very much hoped that we would get to it at the retreat so that it could we could bring clarity to that issue alone if nothing else. And I think that was all

of our hope. Um what I do believe profoundly is that this is that it is the board's policy and it is the board's responsibility if we have two policies that that have conflict between them to resolve them. It is not on the administration to to make that catch for us and tell us you know this is not clear. Um and so while I think that that um meet and confer has been one of the greatest historic celebratory, you know, wins for this district, I think I was at the march, the kids over corporations with Mr.

Tab. Um, I'm so excited to see and stand in solidarity as being the only school district that passed a kids over corporations resolution. Um, and this whole board stands in

solidarity with workers. I put here as a suggestion that I think it is the board's responsibility before we start another cycle which brought great success and great challenge to clarify at least that point so for future for future work and future boards. Um but I I really appreciate anyone's consideration. Um thank you.

Okay, M. Rogers, Vice Chair Rogers. >> Uh, thank you both for sharing. Uh, my what I do want to raise that our policy 2330 um talks about two board members being able to bring an agenda item to the meeting and that remains the case. And in this certain situation, two board members have requested this item be put on the agenda for discussion. I would

like us to hold that discussion not not dismissing what has been said that policy has not been changed to create the only way for policy to come to the agenda is through the policy committee. Um, and I look forward to other leaders and board members working and doing the work of putting together recommendations, other agenda items, resolutions, and things to come to the board and use that policy to get it to the board table. I look forward to when the policy committee chair uh or the superintendent has a recommendation that um that has become urgent or extingent to supersede the policy committee policy and bring items to the agenda. I look forward to um things coming to the

agenda um through the same channels that we normally bring things through. Um I think we have to do all of the above and I would not stop any of those policies from coming to the agenda at any point um so that we can have discussion. I did appreciate um the policy retreat. I'd hoped we would get to this policy so we could talk through some of that more uh around the disconnects in the two policies and how to create that. I would like the board to have a conversation so that we can decide as per our policy around board work sessions in 2235 what to do with the uh recommendations that Beyer has brought to us and where to direct it whether to um determine what changes should be made if

any at this time. what other community engagement needs to be done around this policy and um whether to bring it back for second read for action, but we can't do that without having a discussion. And so I hope that we can put aside our differences about how this agenda item got here, why this agenda item is here, and have a real discussion about the merits of the policy changes that have been requested. And I also think that I know it's important to me that community members have called on us to help shift the culture of this committee and for us to be able to respond to that and having a discussion about that allows us to have that discussion at the board table in open session and we all know where we stand on it.

That's my ask. >> All right. Um and I see Miss Harold Goff. I just want to note the agenda

item is here. Wave policy 2231 in order to consider policy 7215 for discussion. We haven't had a motion yet. Miss Herald off before I make that motion in response to what I've heard so far.

Um the the word ex exigent extingent I can never say that word correctly circumstances of why things would come out of policy committee and come to the board um has been used a lot. Um I personally do not feel that anything that is on this policy is exigent to where it would need to come here before um especially since it's up next in policy committee which is very very soon. Um so and um I also I'm very interested in this is the first year of this policy and the first first year of this process. I'm interested in being able to give the

leadership of the of of the policy committee an opportunity to have time to assess and to also bring what they feel would be appropriate. you know, I know that there's work going on with those with leadership within the polic within the uh meet and confer committee. And so giving the leadership, the the chair and the vice chair, the chair, the two co-chairs an opportunity to also offer their feedback on what policy changes should be made. Um I'd like to look at that holistically.

Um, and without beating the bush, this was the discussion about whether or not two board members would be able to bring something from policy. That's that was the whole thing that had us stuck before. So, um I I welcome the the conversation with all board members, but I'm also um wanting to support us sticking to the same procedures so that we know how to

so that we know what our guard rails are with how we govern collectively. So, um I would like to make a motion um I don't I'm not sure how this motion works. We're we're supposed to be making a motion to wave the policy in order to discuss. So, um I don't want to make that motion.

Somebody else has to make that motion, but we can't discuss it unless we do that first is my understanding. >> Mr. T, >> thank you very much. Um how do we get here?

Um, we got here because we have a policy that says two board members can have to agree to get something to to be on the agenda. Um, I was the other person. I want to be very clear to get something on the agenda because I stand by that that any board member on this das should be able to bring something to the table for discussion. That's that's

the primary purpose of this for a work session is for us to discuss something. That doesn't mean that people are going to vote a certain way or not vote a certain way but just for discussion because this issue has come up. I would love to hear from my colleagues to discuss this because this is the platform that we should be discussing it. Not necessarily meaning which way we're going to lean or not but just for discussion.

Um, and so when I'm looking at the um, prices here, it also says action. I wasn't sure how did action get checked on this when we were just going to do discussion. >> My understanding is that action is to wave the policy so that we can have the discussion. It's not action on the policy.

>> Okay. just I'd like to be clear that that's why it's there cuz I'm sure there are people out there who want to know um how we get to that point. So that's where I am and um just want to have the

discussion. Miss Hero, >> I'm sure that there's a lot of discussion that's going to be coming out of policy committee on various policies and if we're not going to honor that process, it could create a lot of confusion, a lot of if we just, you know, if about when and how we're doing things. It's very and it's also very hard to communicate to, you know, our onboarding board members what to expect and how procedures work if we're always going to be flip-flopping. The only reason why I'm being a stickler about this particular one is because actually I was one of the voices early on that was like we want to be able to bring any and this the policy in particular, our uh policy committee policy does not have in it that any two board members bring it. And so we're we're saying now so when we were trying to do that before it

didn't it wasn't it wasn't honored. So now we want to honor and I do want to have the discussion. So and you know and whatever we decide about whether or not to wave it I would love to do that. Um but it's important to make this point because we have to honor our consistency on how we govern collectively.

And so this is a very important discussion. Having said all of that, I also um I see these points. I I know that policy committee is coming back, I mean to to discuss this in in the very next meeting. Um it's in writing.

We've seen it for discussion and right now I think we need to is anyone going to make this motion to to to wave the policy to have this discussion? Um I don't feel like I mean I see the things in writing, the things that are coming. Um, I know when policy committee is going to meet. Um, I also would love to hear from leadership on what their recommendations to the

policy would be. Especially in their first year, I would like for them to have the opportunity to assess and to bring back their recommendations because they are the ones who are actually doing the committee. So, I don't know if they are going to agree or disagree with any of what is here. What kind of ramifications those could could make.

We could discuss it now or we could discuss it in policy committee. Um if should I just go ahead and make the motion? I I make the motion um well to wave the policy 2231 in order to discuss policy 7215. We have to second it and then we vote.

Right. Okay. So I just made the motion. >> Second.

>> All right. It's been moved and properly seconded. Um, so um, in order to wave a district, uh, policy according to policy 2450, suspension of board policies, um, there

has to be a two-thirds vote of board members um, to uh, to go ahead and wave that policy. Is there >> Yeah. So, we're having discussion. Is there that's what I was >> Yeah.

>> Is there more discussion? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, um >> Okay, you want to speak?

>> Yes, please. >> Beyer, >> when you have a chance? Um I appreciate um the robust discussion that we have started to have. I would um welcome clarification on um next steps with this policy.

From my understanding, we have one more meeting of the policy committee which is help me out. I'm bad with dates. Next week, right? >> Right.

>> 21st. >> May 21st. >> May 21st. It's a two-hour meeting where

um Miss Cardottton, the items that you describe, seclusion, restraint, code of student conduct clearly need significant time. We have um we have the board retreat on the 20th. I don't know if all seven of us are able to attend that and I haven't seen whether we have time on the agenda for discussion and I would welcome um discussion and understanding from you all whether you think it would be helpful to this process to at least clarify the the conflict that continues to exist between these two policies prior to the start of certification or the next meet and confer cycle. I haven't heard that from you all. And

when I've um talked to all my colleagues, when I talk to President Tweet Meer, when I talk to you, Dr. Louis, I bring all of this with a spirit of solidarity and good intent. I took time to say what what could be tweaked in a minor way and I have already seen some social media post calling me shameless and questioning my integrity. That's fine.

like folks got to do what folks are going to do. But that name calling and adversarial spirit is never collaborative within our progressive community. And so I hoped that folks would be appreciative

of of the time and effort to at least make some suggestions on the table that are minor and that would reduce the existing conflict between those policies. Um, so I'm unclear from this brief discussion and from chairstead not being able to join us what happens next with this conflict between existing policies that the board has written. All right. And I haven't shared yet.

So I will go ahead and share. We have a motion on the table. Um and that motion is to wave policy 2231 in order to discuss um or to consider policy 7215 for discussion. Um I oppose this waving of policy um because I too think that we should um follow our existing policy to allow for

discussion of policies in policy committee. Um, as noted, we have a very long list of policies that we haven't gotten to yet. And um, those are important and um, and you know, last year um, we had conversation um, about you know, the policy committee in developing that. um some um at least one board member felt that in an individual or a small group of people in on the board should not work on a policy without um agreement of the full board.

So we developed a process where the whole board um votes on priorities um and a tiered list and we've been working through that very diligently this year. Um so right now to my knowledge this policy has not um come with input from administration or the DAE team as far as I know. Um I know that I've talked to

Dr. Lewis about meet and confer at various times throughout the year and I have not heard him mention um a desired change to policy. It is okay if you would like a desired if you desire a change to policy. Um but we haven't I haven't um that hasn't been a a topic um yet.

I do know that we have discussed changes to the practice and the procedure um and a number of um ways in which meet and confer would happen and I think lots of people have had those conversations and I think that um that's valid and I look forward to the you know to the changes. This was our first year. There were many learnings. That said, there is obviously some desire to change the policy and so then the appropriate um venue for that would be the policy committee and um there are um one of the policies of course the community engagement policy which those of us who worked on it did um get policy get input from about 8 n

10 community leaders on that policy before bringing it to the board. Um and um but that was circummended to the policy committee. It's now on a long list of policies and it won't get dealt with this academic year. Um I submitted changes to the LGBTQIA uh plus policy that would strengthen our support for those students that was pushed to the end of you know or the tier three not the end of line tier three.

We won't get to it this year. I submitted a lactation policy. Um, even I would say we, you know, we need, as someone who's regularly pumping, that's why I step out every so often, um, we could use that and, um, we won't get to it this year. Um, we have a policy, I submitted a policy change to allow for only one board member to um, put something on the media meeting agenda and it not to require two. We won't get to that this year. So there's a long list and then we have

that's just the ones I submitted. So that doesn't include community members, other board members, what have you. Um and so we haven't had any public comment. Well, we did today.

We had one public comment. Um before this day, we didn't have public comment or advocacy calling for a change to this policy. Now, we have had changes um um reflections and desires to change the um the format and the and the practice. And that is something that I know that our um leadership of the meet and confer team um have been working on and um and that many of us have been dialoguing about as well. Um so um obviously all board members have a right as do community members to request a look at potential changes to policies. But we have a process that allows for a deep dive by the policy committee fine-tuning of wording and then it goes

to the full board. That's what's happening in just a few minutes um with five policies um four policies um and and so um then it comes to the full board for that conversation. Um so last year we spent a whole year developing the meet and confer policy. Um it took a lot of time.

I um would like us to um to uh have this, you know, discussed in policy committee through the process we've created. And um and I'll just say it we it's not fair. I don't think it's fair to push one policy to the front of the line. Who gets to do that?

Um and and what is it you know what is the reason for that? Um so I will stop there. Any other discussion?

I I do have some discussion. I think um who gets to make a decision about your question around who gets to make a decision about what policies come to the agenda. I think we all have our board policies and access to our board policies and understand how to use them to get things on the agenda, whichever agenda is the case. Um, I think we have um heard from folks in community about asking us to make some change to that and it's okay for us to respond to that.

Um, and that there were multiple people that made comments about me and conferred today, not just one. and they did have differing opinions. Um,

and I'm glad that there are some people who have some board members who have been having conversations with um, leadership from the meet and confer committee. That's great. I wonder are we going to delegate any conversations that we have to get approval from any committees of the board before we start having conversations with each other. I will also acknowledge this is the first time that I heard from President Tweet Meer about anything that's happened in meet and confer um personally and about the advocacy around the changes and the conversations around changes that they were going to implement. But if not for this item being on the agenda, I'm not sure that I would have heard from her. Um, but I don't want this iteration of the board or future iterations of the board

to beholden to getting approval from members of the community for us to have a discussion about anything. uh because ultimately the people elected us and this is our meeting where we can have conversations that will help us build consensus together about decisions that we need to make. I would love to hear from each of you about each of the changes that Beyer has recommended so that I can share my thoughts about it as well because there are some things that I have questions about and without hearing from you I don't feel comfortable saying yeah let's put this on the policy committee agenda for the 21st because what I want the product to come out of policy committee to be what I think we should all want the product that comes out of policy committee to is something that we have consensus around and if we just send it without discussion then the only people who have

voice in that space are the committee members. So we'll come if the board says send it there do it on the 21st in this conversation right now. Y'all do it. It comes back.

We're still back at the same drawing table or the board table to have a conversation about what changes board members absolutely want to see. And I also think that we have a responsibility to any erro, not just DAE, to have a clear set policy by the 31st, so that if any erro should want to certify that they can do so based on the standards that the board sets should we modify in that interim. That's just my take. Would love to hear from y'all. If you don't want to tell me, you don't want to tell the public, it's okay. Take it to policy committee, have the conversation,

uh, decide what next steps are. I look forward to when it comes back to the board table hopefully before May 31st. >> Okay, Beyer. And we've spent about maybe 45 minutes on this, so we'll try to make a little bit.

I I really appreciate the time and um thoughtful discussion. I am so appreciative that Dr. Lewis took the time to survey members, all of our staff that were there at meet and confer. Um, and I appreciate you sharing those survey results with us, and I know you and I have had conversations in um, one-on- ones, as you probably have with others, about what some improvements might be, but I sit here wishing that we had your feedback and also feeling that you're not able to freely speak about what

could improve it. What I sensed was from from staff as we the board added policy committee and legislative steering committee as well as meet and confer committees to your cabinet's responsibilities. Massive shifts in what y'all have to staff on our behalf this year. Massive.

What I felt was some tension and difficulty when you had two meetings a month for meet and confer. I felt like, whoo, heads spinning. We're here again. That I felt like we could help fix that before next year.

And these are like these are policies that can only be adjusted by the board. They can't be adjusted by you. You're not going to be comfortable saying it's too much or help. I don't think I don't think we've made you that space to be able to give us that feedback. But I appreciated the survey. I thought that the facilitator idea

actually y'all had discussed some before and I thought your team would welcome. I pulled it from original DAE draft when they brought it to begin with. It's neutral. It's it's it could be a labor person that comes in and really understands labor, but where both sides y'all could hear each other better.

That was my idea for an improvement of the collaborative spirit that I know that that you you all want in that space and that that DAE wants. Um and then I wanted clarity like I wanted clarity for the folks the 26 employees that are all ours or the boards the future boards at that table about what happens when policy recommendations come out. Where do they go? It's not clear yet.

It's not. And so this is my starting point for discussion. Um, and I I feel like we need your feedback, but you aren't able to give it. I I'm

uncomfortable asking you to give it, and I don't know what to do with that. I sit here like feeling like we all would be better informed um and should be. And just um let's see Miss Herald Golf, we are discussing the um the waving of policy 202031 in order to dis to consider policy 7215 for discussion. >> Miss Harold Goff, I I did want to mention that that was on the table.

I also acknowledge that it's been 45 minutes and we've been talking about whether or not to discuss it. we could have spent that 45 minutes in discussion already. I just want to apologize that you know that we're even at this this particular position. Um it's very hard to figure out what to do when we keep flip-flopping on things, you know, and we were in the same position a while ago. So we can acknowledge that, you know, it's not

consistent and since it's being brought up at 45 minutes, I don't want to spend another, you know, or if we need to either vote on whether or not to have the discussion or we have to do that anyway. So can we call the vote? Is that how you do that? Call vote.

Yes. All right. And then um all right then once it's been called then we'll go ahead and take a vote. Um so all those in favor of waving policy 2021 2020 2231 in order to consider policy 7215 for discussion please say I.

I. >> All those opposed please say nay. >> Nay nay. All right.

The motion does not pass. Um I would like to ask Dr. Lewis if you would like to speak on it now.

>> Yeah, absolutely. Um and my microphone has worked. I don't mind speaking freely about this as I was definitely one of the participants around the table um at meeting confer and um absolutely there definitely does need to be some shifts in terms of the structure frequency of the meetings and I have shared that with all board members doing my one-on- ones um uh as well uh we are still continuing to dig in the the survey the feedback that we administered to the meeting confer committee uh the 13 DAE members as well as the 13 uh DPS uh meeting confer um members and some of the concerns that I expressed and I'll just share with those the frequency of the meetings um the structure of the meetings um um as well as the need for a facilitator um some of that is indeed um validated I guess you would say in the um in the survey data um survey data is is positive some believe that believe that you know it can only get better which I certainly agree with that sentiment um as well and I think it's an

opportunity for us after year on um you know to really reflect and see how we can um improve upon on that um you know there were some frustrations um and I haven't you know looked at the um survey the only identifiers we had in the survey were were your DAE member or DPS member I haven't looked at the survey data by um a membership yet um but I will I do sense some frustration from some potential I'll say committee members about um administration being prepared uh for those meetings and that may indeed speak to the frequency of the meetings because as I shared in the development of this policy when we're talking about the frequency of meetings that there needs to be um well the the realization is that the work happens at the meetings but the bulk of the work happens between the meetings and so we need time to make sure that we are able to deliver and we owe it to our staff to ensure that we are um delivering at that at at those meetings. And so in addition to the work and the feedback and the action steps

from those meeting confirmed meetings, um we're working on that and running a a full district. And so um yeah, I'm looking forward to the board engaging in conversations around uh this meeting confer um policy that that administration has to operationalize um along with um DAE at those meeting confer meetings. But yeah, I certainly um am looking forward to to that and I think that will definitely get to the sentiments of it can only get better. Um but what we my opinion what we cannot do is continue the way that it has been been been done as some respondents in the survey did indicate um that they felt it'll be a little bit more um honest in terms of a dialogue if it wasn't in a such a large setting there as well.

So, any questions for me or ready to move on? >> Thank you, Dr. Lewis. I appreciate that.

And also, I want to apologize. I didn't mean to misrepresent you. You did speak about the frequency of meetings and I

didn't interpret that as a policy change, but that would indeed be a policy change. So, thank you. Um so um so in light of the fact that um there there is a desire to um to work on this policy um by administration board and um community members. I would like to refer it to the policy committee.

Um that doesn't mean we will get to it this year because we have one more meeting and we have two hours and we have already an agenda. Um but it will go to the policy committee and um the policy committee will continue. >> Can that be a motion? >> Uh I'm yes I move to uh refer this policy to the meet and confer policy to the policy committee. I would second if it's able if you'd consider a friendly amendment of actually setting aside um time on the agenda to discuss that the feedback that

Dr. Lewis shared. >> Um I would that would not be my um oh let me make it sound friendly. is a friendly amendment to just set aside 15 20 minutes of the agenda to actually discuss the feedback that's shared >> on the 21st.

>> Yeah. >> What is on the agenda already for the 21st >> and with the understanding that this already got kicked from the previous retreat agenda? I mean it it was didn't get get touched at it. Um but also when it was on the agenda, the purpose was to clarify the interaction with the um the between the meet and confer policy and the policy committee policy.

It wasn't to discuss all of the different items in the meet and confer policy. It the meet and confer policy in my interpretation wasn't on the list. It was a discussion of process. Um, so

>> you and yeah, you and I discussed that and I I had a totally different understanding of why it was on there because it specifically of of the tension between these two existing policies needs to be addressed. But >> okay, then I would ask um, Miss Cardott and as the policy committee chair, what is on the agenda for next Thursday? >> So the content of the agenda for next th Thursday largely depends on the actions taken by the board this evening. um not only with regards to this, but I'm more speaking um with the other policies that are on the agenda this evening.

So, if this board, for example, were to discuss um 4326 about seclusion and restraint and pass it back to policy committee, that will end up on the policy committee agenda. Um if the student code of conduct discussion ends up with direct directing that back to policy committee, the board could do other things with those policies, but when in my discussion with Dr. Pitman who's the staff liaison in building this agenda we've kind of created some space and

what we also in order to maintain integrity of the process what I've discussed with her is what in whichever way these were tiered again the vote from the board that ordered them I want to maintain that tiering so that's how they're currently on the agenda which is the live um the live version of the agenda that everybody has access to. So, it's basically to pick up on where we left off in tier 2 and what we had decided for tier 2. And this item, the tandem relationship between these two policies and any potential conflicts between the two um is on the agenda, but it's not being bumped up higher than other agenda items. And I'll note too that of the changes that I've seen proposed in 7215, only one of them is about the tandem relationship between those two policies. So

can I ask a point of clarification around that? It sounds like my understanding of policy committee was that when we discussed particular policies and policy committee, we were looking at them holistically and not just based on individual pieces. This is the second time that I've heard this idea that this particular item is not what was tiered by the board. And because my request when we were talking about our relationship with law enforcement um and the impact of immigration stuff was that we have a conversation about a dress code um around what adult visitors could wear to school and include that in the policy. Um but I was told that that couldn't be included in the policy and keeping our schools safe from law enforcement. um because that was not the nature of the

submission of the policy. And so I didn't understand that as a board member when community members were submitting policy um considerations that it had to be specific to or verbatim to um a particular subject or word etc or specific lines. And so I want to know uh what other policies would we look at not holistically and look at line by line. So will we take um there were some restorative practice uh amendments to the student code of conduct that were introduced since the policy committee meeting that weren't there?

Why would we not look at that whole policy as a collective? Like will we not look through every line and every policy? And if we are limiting ourselves, then we're

going to continue to see conflict in policies. I I don't know. I just want clarification around why we would only look at one piece of a policy. >> Miss Cardotten, >> um that's not the case at all.

The 7215 was never submitted to the policy committee through either the August nor the February submission periods. So it's frankly just by special request that this even ended up on the retreat agenda. It is not officially a tiered policy. So of course we would consider a policy not one not just one piece or not in isolation. Um, and if we want to revisit the policy committee policy or if this board does in future um in future meetings, and I think maybe they should to revisit the tiering process and the prioritization process and timeline, that's possible. But as currently written, I'm doing my best to follow and maintain integrity to the process that this board agreed upon.

in full integrity to that process would not allow this policy to be on the policy committee agenda at all unless we direct it tonight. So other comments or >> Natalie offered a friendly amendment to your motion. Yes, I >> where we are >> if there okay if there are no more comments right now then um my comment would be that um meet and confer does not begin to meet until October. the policy committee um gathers recommendations by October by August 31st and tears them in September. And so there would be an opportunity um to begin working on the meet and

confer policy if it was tiered at the top um by the policy committee in the coming academic year. um at the end of September or the beginning of October. And um um furthermore, the idea of a facilitator um I don't believe is um the >> we're not discussing the merit of the changes though, right? Because we said we just voted not to discuss the policy.

>> Okay. So what I was saying was the um there are the facilitator is not necessarily precluded by you the policy doesn't prohibit um all of these things. Some things would need to be changed in policy some things in practice. >> So you want to be allowed to discuss your take on the policy but the rest of us can't. Um, so what I was doing was saying why I was not accepting the

friendly amendment and giving more context and people have commented about the changes suggested through this discussion. But now I'm not accepting the friendly amendment because I think it should be referred for the coming academic year. I I would I would just reflect to all of us as we sit in um a place where we look to improve that. I hope that there is um some way to bring clarity to something that that we uh noticed as we went through this year.

And when I heard Dr. Lewis's comments, I heard specifically about the schedule of meetings which is defined by policy. And I heard um

um a willingness of a facilitator and I heard um the tension that that continues to to address and I while this can be kicked down the road and um it it doesn't it doesn't make clear to the folks that are certifying by the 31st what the schedule of meetings will be and what the expectations on on central office staff will be. So, um I'm very curious about how we how we do we need a second. >> Yes. >> Okay.

Um I second. >> Okay. It's been moved and properly seconded. Um to refer uh policy 7215 to the policy committee.

Is there any other discussion? >> I just want to >> Yeah. I just want to share that I will not support this because that's for the next board to decide because the reharing is going to happen. So, I'm voting against this because a referral to the policy committee doesn't do anything between now and May 31st.

Okay. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I.

>> I. >> All those opposed, please say nay. >> Nay. >> It passes 32.

And now we will move to the next item. policy committee. Um the first item policy committee update is from information only B is 4240/7312 child abuse reports and investigations

for first read and I will now um get hand it over to Dr. King. Thank you. Am I referring?

I'm sorry. Dr. King is listed, but I can hand it over to Dr. Pitman.

Thank you. Uh the policy committee met on this u child abuse reports and investigations. They spoke about in section D the duty to report um of our licensed employees to the state board. And it clarifies that the administrators must report the three specific categories of misconduct invol involving our licensed employees including misconduct involving physical injury or two or sexual contact with a child, misconduct justifying automatic revocation of the employees license and misconduct resulting in certain criminal

charges. when misconduct results in the termination of employment, non-renewal of an employment contract, suspension without pay, disciplinary action or resignation. In section H of the policy, child abuse and neglect information and resources for students um was also lifted up and the administration was presenting this policy for reading for board review and discussion on first reading. All right.

Thank you, Dr. Pitman. Board members, Vice Chair Rogers, >> I'd like to offer a motion to um approve the changes to policy 4240 and 7312 as recommended by administration to come back for consideration for second read at the board meeting on May 28th. >> Second.

>> All right. It's been moved by Vice Chair Rogers and seconded by Harrell Goff to approve policy 42407312 um for a first read to come back um at the monthly meeting for May. Is there any other discussion? All those in favor please say I.

>> I. >> Mr. Tab, was that an I? Yeah.

Okay. Um we it was approved 6. Oh, sorry. >> Question.

Would you like that back on discussion or u consent? >> Um board members and actually I'm sorry. All those in fa all those um not in favor, please say nay. Okay.

Passes 6. Um board members, is there a desire for it to be on consent or for discussion? >> I'd like it on consent. >> All right. I'm seeing thumbs up for consent. Consent.

Are you all okay with consent? All right. Yes, consent. Thank you.

All right. The next one is um item C, policy 51507313, reporting to external agencies. And this one I will pass it to Dr. Pink.

>> This one you'll pass to Dr. King. Thank you. And I will take it this time.

And thank you to Dr. Pitman for taking the last one. Board members, this uh actually is a a new policy. Um and essentially this uh policy um outlines the various scenarios uh wherein the superintendent is required to uh report specific information to external government agencies and officials. Um the policy is essentially a consolidation and a restatement of those responsibilities that exist in a plethora of uh policies uh throughout

the um the the board's policy um manual. Um we have reviewed the policy and uh do uh ask this for this policy to go forward uh for force reading first reading for board review. Uh would would note board members that we are quite aware that um passage of this policy will obviously require us to take a a closer look at some additional policies just to make sure we maintain compliance um going forward. >> First board members.

Yes, Vice Chair Rogers. >> I see this policy went to the policy committee. Is there a report from the policy committee as to why this is not on consent? Miss Cardotten, would you like to respond or? Um, it's my recollection that it was the preference of administration who brought this policy to us to have it not be on

consent because we do discuss that with every policy we work through. We try to put as many on consent at policy committee and at the board as possible. >> Um, and I saw a nod from Dr. Pitman, Beyer, >> are we 5150?

>> Yeah, >> it was my recollection also that um in light of um issues that have been in the district this year that we would be as transparent as possible about making updates to this and the one prior um with the community that we would just kind of I see Miss Carter nodding. So I think that was some of the thought process of just bring it in a more transparent and more open way. >> All right. Other um comments, questions? I move approval of this um policy 51507313 on first read and um with a motion to

bring it back on consent for the May board meeting. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved and and seconded um by Carda-Auten and Beyer to um bring back uh to approve for first read policy 5150/7313 and bring it back the May monthly meeting.

Is there any other discussion? All those in favor please say I. >> I. >> All those opposed, please say nay.

All right, it passes 6. And the next item is policy 4326, rules for use of seclusion, restraint in schools. And so I will pass it to doc I will pass it to Dr. Bitman.

>> I'll I'll start just >> Sorry. I'll pass it to Dr. King playing volleyball over here. Uh board members, this uh uh policy obviously um 4326 is one that is um you have had quite a bit

of uh conversation about through the policy committee. Um and um certainly good deal of discussion last year when this policy was addition was initially revised. Um I I believe at this point um the board might want to continue to have some additional conversation. We do have um um ex executive director for elementary schools programs uh visa here to provide some um ability to answer questions relative to specific questions that board members might have specifically around um how this policy would impact um students who are part of our exceptional children's policy.

uh but would want to also um note that the policy is a policy that impacts all students as it relates to um restraints and seclusion. So with that, I'll pass it back to board members for any discussion you might have. >> Thank you, Dr. King. Board members, Beyer,

>> I think um I'm so appreciative of the Durham Advocates for Exceptional Children and the time they've taken to dig into these policies. I think they've met with several of us and um have provided written documentation on some suggested improvements in an ongoing way. They also in my conversation with them, Dr. Lewis, we're so appreciative of you and your willingness to meet with them, but also your clear background in working with exceptional students with exceptional needs. Um but I think their um ideas were extensive and when I spoke with them earlier, I asked them to consider sending the written materials to uh policy committee chair Carta Autton to consider sending those ahead to Theon Smith to see I if any of them could be ready for um further discussion wi with his review ahead of time. And I didn't know if you if they had done that already or if you'd received that and if that was a good way to proceed as we

share their feedback with um policy committee but also with staff to expedite some of the work so that it's not so a very long policy. Yeah, thanks for that suggestion. Um and we have done that with most of the policies we've looked at. I can't remember if we've sent specifically the most recent feedback from Durham Advocates for Exceptional Children to the attorney that supports us in the policy committee, but I think that's a great idea. Um I'm uh I love their where the direction they're going in. I know that I've made suggestions that are aligned with that and I know that um Jason, our attorney, has provided us with some feedback, but I think we'll see what he can get us um before our next policy committee meeting to kind of uh expedite that conversation to see if there are any legal concerns with the recommendations.

>> Miss Herokov, >> thank you. Um, is there a way like can we take a couple of minutes to um see if we can as a board articulate some of the discussions that we've had with um with the Durham Committee of Except for >> for exceptional children. >> No, Siri, I'm not talking to you. um uh um can we try to articulate some of that or unpack some of that as a board, you know, so that we can use some of that time for that right now.

So, one thing that I I remember coming from those conversations is around some of the there was some language that was um uh soft. What was um what's the word for it? It wasn't um like it may or something like that with I gotta remember. Oh my gosh, let me come back to that one. Um the idea that

what would keep us from um not having what? There was some some conversation in policy committee um around seclusion and restraints including like seat belts and and things you know that are not necessarily like the intention of that was was different from like seclusion and restraint that we're communicating in this policy. So there was that I remember that came up. Um and so having language in the policy that can delineate the difference and still say that you know to be very clear about we don't want any of any of this seclude you know those kinds of restraints um and and when and how they should be used.

So there was that and I would love to hear from other board members. There were several things. Can we articulate as a board what we have collected the things that are important to bring back if we wanted to send this back to policy committee. That's one thing I remember. Let me see if I can grab my notes and

figure out the other ones. >> Okay. Thank you. So suggestion to kind of um throw out areas where we are interested to um maybe align to what to some of the recommended changes.

>> Right. Okay. Other board members comments. >> Okay.

Miss Cardon. Um well, you know, a couple other things that came up both in the policy committee retreat and in multiple conversations with Derm Advocates for Exceptional Children is the reporting to parents, what's reported and when. And I think we've seen um some improvement in the latest version of the policy, but as I think um it was Dr. Lewis had flagged in our policy committee retreat that if a student is restrained, verbal notification on that day is ideal. And I think I'd like to return to that. Right now, the current version of

the policy leaves room for that day or the following. And I believe this applies to both the seclusion and restraint. Um that's one thing that does feel really important to me if it were my we notify parents of all sorts of things on the same day right if your kid gets suspended or for other reasons. So um that feels important.

So, same day verbal notification and um I think generally I'd like to tighten up the notification um in the policy both notification to parents um and in some cases to principles and just really make it if it's a restraint that's being used in a supportive way or an assisted way, assisted way. So, a wheelchair for example, a strap on that, a guiding hand to walk down the hallway. Of course, parents don't need to report on that. But all else feels um as a parent of children, I would like to know about that. And I understand why there's

a request coming um from our parents who have exceptional children that they would like to be notified of those types of things um and notified as soon as possible. You don't know when your child comes home what they've endured that day, if they've been sitting in a room by themselves for an hour or if someone has had to hold them down physically. And you need to know those things to be able to respond both to their emotional needs but also to their physical needs when they get home at the end of the day. >> Thank you. Um I'll say I'm also interested in um expanding the reporting and the um and further clarifying the data reported to the board the segregated data reported to the board. Um so we can do you want to discuss more um or we can um see if we have consensus

around those areas of as areas of interest to be explored or go ahead and um refer it back if appropriate to the policy committee. Are other people interested in the in the reporting and notification piece? Mr. Tab, you want to ask?

>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm in agreement with the uh reporting. So, more reporting is always better for me.

>> Okay. Thank you. Other folks, Miss Vice Chair Rogers. >> So, reporting to the parents or reporting to the board?

>> Reporting to the board. and then we can look at how we would structure it going forward, whether it should be extended to others. >> I'm in favor of more reporting to the board. I have questions. Maybe this was answered while I stepped out, but my questions are um is there

any data around what the notifications to parents, the average notification to parents is right now? >> I don't think there is any that has been prepared. Um, I think we could probably we could use the reports that we have, the written reports to parents to go back and probably um tease that out, but I don't think that's it's something that we've tracked purposefully in the past. >> So, how would you monitor if the notification has been issued in two days?

>> You know, if in honesty, I think there's two two responses to that. Um, one would be like, you know, many of the things that we do, we we we we place these items in policy and expect our administrators to comply and expect them to do that work. Obviously, we could structure a system that required them to report to um district staff that they

have reported um if that would be the board's desire. But generally as it relates to these matters, what we do is we place the expectation in policy and we trust that our administrators comply with those directives. Um, okay. I'm concerned about us putting um time-sensitive requests in policy like this um if we're not monitor if there's no process to monitor that to ensure that that's happening.

Um I'm also nervous about adding one more thing to the plate of our teachers and our administrators. That would be a hurdle or challenge to intervene um in some instances. But I would like us to I would like the administration to start collecting data around when

parents are contacted after an incident so that that can be reported to the board and should the board take issue with the reporting windows or see issue and administration right see issue with the reporting issues. um over a period of time can make adjustments as needed. >> Okay. Oh, sorry.

Right. Mr. Can I just mention one thing that Jason mentioned to me is and I I think the Chávez started with this is that you know this policy applies to all of your students and that you know one of the reasons for the next day is that you know if you have a big fight at school and kids get separated I mean a lot of that separation of kids would fall within

seclusion or restraint within this policy and that if the principal is supposed to you got 20 kids that were in a fight and you've got to then notify 20 parents at the end of the school day that that could maybe be a little bit unrealistic or very difficult for a principal to do. Um so anyway, it's just something to think about in at least in terms of why he told me that the next day was something that um may be really beneficial for the administration and making sure that they're still timely responding um and complying with policy. Um, so anyway, I just throw that out for discussion, but if it's going back to policy committee, he'll be there to discuss it with you. Anyway, >> other Miss Herob, I would be interested in wording that could delineate those two situations so that in all other situations that you know where it's not a big where there where what are the situations where the parent is notified you know immediately or within that

particular you know within the day and not the next day. Um there's one situation I'm thinking of in particular where child was caught up in a fight and you know parent didn't even know you know until several days later that gives that child enough time to go home and stew and everything and have all the different reactions and then add you know add our special needs and our you know um other children who are dealing with other things on top of you know the thing those things on top of that it escalates it even further with the kinds of psychological reactions and things that parents have to deal with at home because they didn't know that something happened during the school day. Um, so I think there's a way to, again, it requires more language. It'll make the the policy longer, but I think we really need to clearly delineate that in the policy some kind of way. Um, because there are also other situations where I don't feel like we should wait um, a whole day before requiring those things be that families be notified.

Beyer. >> So, I appreciate all the suggestions that we're lifting up ways to notify families sooner than 30 days, which is what's written in there. I mean, that is a is a way too long window in my opinion. I love the um suggestion that we consider how we talk about isolation differently and whether that's ever appropriate, particularly with students with special needs.

Um, I loved their suggestion that we um consider could we explicitly say taping and tying are are completely prohibited in Durham public schools. Like I loved almost all of their suggestions. That's why I was suggesting that in order to expedite and save time that we see let Jason and Dr. Lewis and Dr. King have that document and have a good stab at what we can push forward. I think Jason has learned how progressive this board is and how we try to um do the most and

um I think he's he's um gotten so great at threading the needle of of difficult things um along with us and that has saved us a tremendous amount of time in policy committee. Um, so I' I'd welcome that kind of approach. Um, just holistically looking at their suggestions and telling us what what we can and can't do or if any concerns he has, you know, and the administration has. >> So then are there is there consensus around that approach and passing on that document and having them look?

We had some, you know, conversation about the notification to parents. Um, how that might differ. Um, we might have different options for that notification around or reporting to the board. It sounds like we're um pretty much have consensus on that.

Um, but there are other things. The isolation um banning um some particular types of restraints explicitly. Um do we have consensus around sending the documents from our

community partners? um DEAC to um administration and our attorney. Yeah. Okay.

Cool. So, we'll do that. We'll send it you all's way and then we'll see what you all come up with and discuss next week. Mer golf.

Also, when it um when we send this back to policy committee, um I'd like to uh more discussion about um I I know there was there's some debate around whether we need is the isolation or restraint at all for our special needs kids. I'd like to, you know, I I'm I'm not I don't think that we need those kinds of tactics with our special needs kids at all. Or do we need to better define what that looks like in the policy? Um, so that's something that I would like to bring back for discussion when when this pol when this goes back to policy committee. >> Okay. Do you think um

maybe it will um maybe you'll be able to bring those concerns to policy committee and then we can Yeah. >> Just wanted to voice it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.

Um and so um Miss Rogers, >> I I just have a question. I don't disagree with the plan to move it forward. My question is is the expectation that the Dr. Lewis, Dr.

King and Jason will work on this before the policy committee meeting on the 21st and have a document then or are they needing more time than that? >> Dr. King, >> yes, they are needing more time than that. But we also have to get this done for the new for July year round school start and um policy update and handbook stuff >> and training.

>> I I think that's also a constraint. Respectfully, I I guess my concern is I I really don't know how extensive the documents that the EAC have shared are. I also don't know. Um I do know that it's Thursday and I don't know what other items are.

I mean, today is Thursday, right? and and I don't know what Jason's schedule is like over the next couple of days, whether or not we can expect him to dedicate the amount of time it might require to review that um and and prepare a document in what would essentially be two business days. >> All right. So, Miss Carter, >> um, so I I'm I think that the bulk of what they're asking for, I put into questions that you, Dr. King, have responded to already, that Q&A document that was posted publicly at um, not our

retreat, but our policy committee meeting. So, we have some initial responses from administration on each of the different points um that they've offered up or if not all than most of them, which means that asking um attorney Weber to weigh in on as many as he can before the next policy committee meeting I think is reasonable and those he can't get to he can weigh in on during the policy committee meeting. Frankly, this is because we have such tight turnaround between meetings. We're this is we're always faced with the same exact issue.

So, thank you for naming it. It is an issue. So, I I'm just going to ask him to do his best and what he can. Does that feel comfortable or what?

>> Yeah, I my apologies. I I assume that the we were talking about a new set of documents or new information that the organization had sent over. If if it is largely this material, I mean, I think we've already gone through it and contemplated, you know, most of the items that would

be involved there. >> Yeah. Okay, then thank you. Um, and then we will do our best and then that will be the last policy committee meeting and we're this year.

Um, so >> I will just I will point out that and Jason can obviously work with um Jessica between now and the next meeting, but it's my understanding from the meeting we had this afternoon that that the draft that you have is is his most aggressive review of what was recommended and what he's comfortable recommending to the board. But um but either way, you can you can talk to Jason yourself during the week, so that's fine. >> All right, Miss Cardan, any other comment? >> Um um just to say this is Yes.

Attorney Weber has proposed um some suggestions in response to many of these and I think this is kind of our cadence of how we work is we then we ask him to go further and then he tells us how comfortable he is with going further and there's a back and forth that usually moves things a little bit in the other direction and he protects us. >> Well, that's what we love about Jason. So, you're you're in good hands. >> All right.

>> Okay. Sorry. And then it then it'll come back to the board. Will it because it's will it be for second read?

>> What? >> Okay. >> Even though the document's going to be modified could be modified significantly, >> it will still be a second read because this is a first read. Yes.

>> Okay. Dr. >> Then we'll have to deal with it. Okay. Okay. Okay.

>> All right. And of course, all board members and everyone in the universe is invited to our policy committee meeting this coming Thursday at 11:30 here at Fuller. Okay. All right.

So with that we will go on to our last item under policy committee polic policy 4301. Oh let me back up. Let me back up. Okay I will take a motion.

>> I move approval of policy 4326 rules for use of seclusion and restraint in schools. First read. >> Second. >> All right.

It's been moved by Miss Harold Goff, seconded by Beyer. Any other discussion? All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed, please say nay.

Passes 60. And with that, we will move on to policy 4301, student code of conduct, both elementary and secondary policies for first on for first read. Miss Sidbury or Miss Dr. King.

Miss Sidbury. Good evening, Vice Chair Rogers, facilitator Chávez, board members, Dr. Lewis, cabinet in our Durham community. My name is Chanel Sidbury.

I serve as the assistant superintendent of continuous improvement and school supports. I have with me two esteemed colleagues, um Dr. Lever Maddox Perry, senior executive director of student support services, and Dr. Melissa Watson, um director of student alternatives and support.

Um the title of our presentation is from policy to impact. So we want to walk you through a comprehensive understanding of um where we are as an organization, the policy changes, imple implementation um um adjustments as well as feedback from our administrators and and and principles. Um this work is about outcomes, not just policy changes. Um we're aligning our

policy practice and accountability to um ensure that they are improving student outcomes. Today we're going to talk about how the policy changes suggested um are um will help us to drive changes in adult behavior and how that influences um student impacts. Next slide please. Java.

This slide is an overview. Um we are going to walk you through five key areas tonight very quickly. Um current state and what the data tells us about it. Um what policy changes um what has changed in the policy and why.

what will look different in schools by grapes span. Um how those changes are um going to improve outcomes for our students. How we will monitor and our progress and ensure accountability. Um this structure tonight is comprehensive.

We want to be transparent with the board of education and our greater community about where we're going as as a district. Be transparent about our data and what we need to do next. This structure directly uh responds to the board's request for clarity on impact and accountability.

Next slide, please. Now I'm going to turn it over to um my colleague um Dr. Maddox Perry who will walk you through the progress we have made thus far and the gaps that we must address with these policy revisions. Dr.

Mattis Perry. >> Thank you Miss Sipberry. Good evening Dr. Lewis Chair Umstead uh in your absence uh Vice Chair Rogers the full board and the DPS broader community.

This slide um depicts um data presented that reflects the 202526 school year and is current as of May 7th and 8th of 2026. Districtwide, we've seen approximately a 16% year-over-year decrease in incidents and suspensions. 5%. At the same time, disproportionality remains a significant concern. Students

with disabilities are disproportionately represented in preK grade 2 suspension data. Black students also remain disproportionately represented across grades K2. The most common short-term suspension categories in early grades involve physical aggression and fighting, serious disruptive behavior, and non-compliance, disrespect of others. These trends reinforce the board's ongoing concerns regarding equitable implementation and our use of exclusionary disciplinary practices.

This work is not simply about reducing suspensions numerically. It is about improving consistency, equity, and student outcomes through more calibration and professional learning. Our appeals data shows variability in decision-making as we are seeing increasing level one appeals and long-term suspension or reassignment recommendations for various infractions,

which signals to us inconsistency in some of our decision-making. That recognition is what has led teams to pursue revisions to policy 4301 to lessen variability in responses to behavior violations across our schools. Next slide, please. Keeping students in school is the foundation for improving outcomes.

Students learn behavior the same way they learn academics through instruction and feedback. and we must teach appropriate behaviors. Research shows restorative practices improve in all the areas we are targeting as a district, attendance, behavior, and academic achievement. So, these revisions you'll read tonight are centered around restorative practices and they're not simply about removing natural consequences for behavior infractions, nor are we lowering expectations. We are strengthening how we teach expectations,

upholding student accountability for one's actions and one's role in repairing any harm done within the community due to our behaviors. Next slide, please. At this time, we'll tip to Dr. Watson.

You go through the remainder of that. Good evening board members, Dr. Lewis and members of the Durham Public Schools community. If you will go to the next slide, please.

As part of our work, we embedded restorative practices directly into um policy 4301. In addition, we clarified that suspension is intended to be a last resort. Suspension is appropriate only when there is significant safety concern, substantial disruption of or documented interventions have not been successful. To support greater

consistency across schools, administrators are now expected to document prior interventions, justify and confer with district leadership for removal decisions, and consider student context before assigning this exclusionary discipline. Policy 4301 establishes district-wide discipline expectations for all students. At the same time, dismant decisions involving students with disabilities are also governed by policy 4307, section 504 requirements and all applicable federal and state protections. Additionally, based on board feedback, staff agrees there's value in more explicitly codifying IEP and 504 considerations within policy 4301 itself to strengthen clarity and alignment.

Ultimately, these revisions move us from discretionary decision-making toward clear and more consistent expectations across schools. Next slide, please. To operationalize these changes, the

system is grounded in three core implementation structures. Administrative response protocols, district behavior matrices, and alternatives to suspension supports. Within this framework, administrators are now required to review and document prior interventions, mitigating factors, and consideration of IEP 504 supports before exclusionary discipline decisions are finalized. As a result, the structure is designed to reduce subject subjective decision-making and improve consistency across schools.

Most importantly, the goal is to ensure decisions are proactive, equitable, and instructional rather than reactive. Next slide, please. Building on that structure, this process requires a structure review before suspension is considered. Administrators must review the incident, analyze prior interventions, consider applicable IEP 405 504 accommodations and behavioral supports, document rationale, and ensure

due process. In addition, suspensions can occur only after investigation, documentation, and consideration of alternatives. The process also requires that administrators document why prior interventions were insufficient and why removal is necessary. Taken together, this process helps reduce inconsistency, strengthen equity, and ensure decisions are not made in isolation before a student's documented supports or needs are considered.

Next slide, please. One of the most significant shifts in this work is that we rejected removal with structured intervention options. This slide shows us what happens instead of suspension and includes a wide range of discipline responses. It's important to emphasize that these are not optional. These are embedded in the response framework and ultimately this is a direct response to board's

question of what happens instead. I invite Dr. Medics Perry to next slide please. So we're looking at our approach by grapes span.

If we take a look at preK and two approach, the board has expressed a clear interest in prohibiting or significantly limiting exclusionary discipline practices for students in preK to the grade three. 5% for all of prek grade 2. For example, preK currently reflects very few incidents districtwide. Three out of 725 students enrolled and kindergarten incidents remain low relative to enrollment as well. 30 out of 2182,182.

This demonstrates that if we continue our early intervention and restorative supports, we will continue to see positive impact. DPS staff is working continually with legal counsel, early education leadership, and school teams regarding implementation authority, operational readiness, and support structures to construct the appropriate policy revisions. The current draft does not yet reflect all the board discussion regarding preK grade three prohibitions and staff will revise language accordingly during the next revision process. Our goal is to ensure schools have the behavioral, restorative, instructional and staffing supports necessary to successfully implement these changes. As we look at grades three to five in this grade band, behavioral matrices prioritize intervention before exclusion. Level one responses explicitly include restorative

conversations, reflection, skill building, and MTSS supports. Suspension is introduced only at higher levels of violation or after escalation and documented interventions. As we look at grade 612 approaches at the secondary le level, students have access to more structured intervention and alternative support systems. This includes community- based programs, alternative learning environments, alternative to suspension um programming, a full-time school-based restorative practices coordinator, and structured re-entry planning.

Our goal is to balance accountability with continued student engagement and support. This is our differentiated and developmentally appropriate approach. Next slide, please. How the policy changes translate to student outcomes. This slide represents

the connection the board has consistently asked us to make. Each policy shift is intended to change adult practice. Those adult actions are what ultimately improve student outcomes. When adults intervene earlier and restoratively, students build trust and remain engaged in instruction.

When root causes are addressed through supports and restorative practices, recidivism decreases. When exclusionary discipline is thoughtful and limited, attendance and connectedness improve. We will provide reflection and pivots that have proven effective in our work. And all our efforts are intended to improve upon consistency, ensure equity, and positively influence long-term student outcomes, not simply demonstrate a reduction in our suspension numbers. Next slide, please.

This slide illustrates the projected reduction in preK grade 2 suspensions when policy revisions are paired with strong implementation practices. As you move from left to right on the slide, you will see the greatest impact occurs when restorative practices, intervention supports, and administrator consistency work together where the number from this example increases from four students being positively impacted to 26 students being positively impacted. This reflects a systems approach we've been working towards for years, not simply a policy change. I do want to note that some of the suspensions currently coded as full day removals in earlier grades include students leaving briefly to reset and returning the following day. This refor reinforces the importance of ensuring consistent coding practices and standardized intervention expectations. The district's goal is not only fewer

suspensions, but fewer repeat incidents and stronger student supports. Next slide, please. ensuring equity throughout the decision-making process. Equity checks are embedded into the decision makingaking process for our discipline.

Um, as Dr. Watson highlighted earlier. I want to reiterate that when adults are responding to violations of the code of conduct involving students with disabilities, the process requires a mandatory review of IEP and 504 considerations as well as mandatory consultation processes. The board raised an important concern regarding whether IEP and section 504 considerations are sufficiently explicit within policy 4301 itself. Though cross referenced with policy 4307, staff agrees that strengthening direct references within policy 4301 could improve clarity,

consistency, and alignment with exceptional children's and section 504 protections. This work oper operationalizes equity through the structure, our required documentation and reciprocal accountability, not just our intentions. Next slide, please. As you've heard over the years, we are doing a lot to address our discipline.

In regards to what is working, school leaders consistently reported that the district behavior matrices provide stronger clarity and consistency for decision-making across schools. Behavior support assistance have also been identified as particularly impactful in supporting students in grades preK to grade two. In looking at areas for improvement, schools identify significant implementation needs, including more trauma informed supports, more autism supports, and additional mental health intervention capacity.

Leaders expressed concerns regarding staffing limitations, and the need for greater flexibility for smaller schools. Some school leaders also noted that implementation protocols can feel rigid without sufficient staffing and intervention capacity. This feedback is directly shaping our next steps in implementation planning, staffing adjustments, and a plan for regional support deployment. Next slide, please.

How will we know? How will we measure progress and ensure accountability? As we are implementing a continuous monitoring and improvement process, the district will conduct continued monthly data analyses and embed quarterly reporting to the board. We will focus on monitoring numbers of and reasons for suspensions, repeat incidents, alternatives to suspension utilization, disproportionality by race and

disability status, appeals, and implementation consistency. Quarterly reports will include disagregated data not quite yet official by race, disability status, offense category, grade band, and school level trends. We will also monitor implementation fidelity, including our restorative practices implementation and responses, interventions documentation, and re-entry planning practices. This directly responds to the board's request for transparency, more accountability, and datadriven monitoring.

Next slide, please. Our philosophy through these revisions is are now is now embedded directly into the policy. We are changing how adults respond to student behavior. This work is intended to help students feel connected to instruction and engaged in their own learning. The district

expectation is that structured re-entry planning occur following exclusionary discipline responses with supports tailored to the students individual needs. We also recognize the board's interest in codifying the re-entry expectations more explicitly within policy 4301. And we just want to state that this is a system shift focused on consistency, accountability, and improved student outcomes. And I'll ask doc uh Miss Tibberry to return.

Next slide, please. Um so again, um nuanced here. You'll see uh overarching thin uh uh themes um changing adult behaviors, um systems and protocols, reporting, data analysis. Um and so this graphic on this slide is is kind of where we are with these policy revisions. Um more structure um creates more consistency, more moni monitoring creates more consistency and those things uh will um support us with improved outcomes for our students. Next

slide please. This slide is directly from our May principles meeting where we re reviewed this policy um with all Durham public schools district staff and principles. Uh that was about a week or so ago. Um and uh we discuss explicitly around these policy changes implementation um how that aligns with school execution and what staff leaders would need to uh make these key shifts in our implementation of this policy.

Um we also want to make sure that we engage staff. So while we did get feedback from district staff and principles, teachers are the ones that are going to um have to um feel how this implementation, this policy change happens at a classroom level. And so we want to make sure we embed that as well. And we want to make sure that we have the time to plan and provide professional learning so that we enter next year with clarity and readiness.

Um this is how we will cultivate this this shared ownership around these policy adjustments at the school level and with our school community. Next slide, please. So I'm not going to read these to you. Um but

these are immediate actions in response to Next slide, Jamie. I'm not going to read these to you, but these are our next steps um in terms of how we move from policy to development to implementation. Our focus, as you have heard, is going to be how we work to ensure this consistency across our schools. Um our our prior to final implementation, we want to gather more support from principles, more support from teachers and schoolbased u leaders um and staff so that we strengthen our operational readiness um and how we're going to implement this with clarity.

We also want to have summer professional learning around this um so that we can be clear around restorative expectations, intervention processes, documentation requirements, all the things that we discussed in the policy. We want to be very clear about that um in our work. We also want to continue to identify and scale best practices that are already having positive outcomes across our schools. Some of our schools are already doing this work well. Um and so if it ain't broke, don't, you know, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

And we want to leverage that support as well. Um, as a result, we're going to continue to use our principal feedback. They're asking us to expand behavioral and restorative supports where possible. They are also asking us to increase trauma-informed and mental health supports at the school level for students and also professional learning from staff.

Asking explicitly for us to continue to strengthen our partnership um with the exceptional children's department led by Dr. Bill and her esteemed team um so that we can strengthen autism and disability related supports as well as well as our learning and understanding of those things and also our smaller schools were very loud in making sure that we know they need differentiated supports with how this policy shows up when you have a very small number of staff. Um so in general we're going to use our regional discipline data on an ongoing basis to identify our trends, target interventions, provide additional support where we see disproportionality persisting. We are reducing our discipline but we also want to make sure we u reduce that disproportionality. Um next slide please. So as I uh close out for the benediction

we just want to say um implementation consistency is where we are falling short. Um, and so we want to make sure that before we roll this out, and I hate that phrase, but roll it out, that we get administrative straight feedback and buyin and staff buyin, operational guidance on what these things are going to trans these policy changes, how they're going to translate to staffing needs at the school level and want to make sure that we're very clear on the board direction. Um, so um, additional work is underway. Um there are some implications at the prek level in terms of some of our our preks are ours, some of them are other agencies and what does that oversight and governance look like at both the state and federal level.

We have to be um make sure our policy doesn't overstep in those arenas um because we are um including prek. Um and and we're strengthening systems also for our families and communication around transparency around our disciplinary decisions and intervention. Um so thank you for your time. I know that was um um um a little bit long, but we wanted to take our time and walk through all of the changes, all the imple implement implementation. This is hard work and students are at the center. So, it's our

um due diligence to be clear um thoughtful um and in in consideration of how this plays out for our teachers, our principles, um district leaders and operationally um with what we can provide schools to make this work. So, we take your um questions and comments. >> Thank you very much. um as they say the proof is in the pudding.

So we can see different results even from um two three years ago. So it's really very striking. Thank you for your work in your presentation. And now board members this is on um our agenda for discussion and action is a first read.

Beyer and then Miss Cardan. So, first I want to thank you for um moving this policy and practice light years ahead. It is very much needed. Um and want to be clear, you all made it sound like you need some more time like with

stakeholder feedback internally before the board is to pass this. Does that mean that you w to Is that on the wording of the policy or more of the implementation and the processes? Like do are you seeing that you would get more feedback in May and then we would take this back up in June? I was trying to understand kind of what y'all's direction was.

>> Sure. So um what I can say is um from the very um exciting policy committee retreat, I had about a day or two um to get um this presentation done which we did share at the principal meeting. So we have gone uh two layers down in terms of district staff and principles. We need to talk to our RPC coordinators, student support counselors, social workers, teachers. Like we need to keep going down to make sure that we have curated all of the feedback so that we're making the most informed recommendation to the board of education. We just haven't had that that time in this swift turnaround um in getting the revisions and then preparing

for the presentation. No, I appreciate that very much because what's been concerning me as as we make this major shift is it's coming at the time that we're also making staffing cuts and a lotment changes and you heard loud and clear from folks that they need more support, not less. They need alternatives for those preK2 students and the whole laundry list that you delineated. So I guess is our feedback tonight kind of general to you all and then you bring it back in June with more but that's it doesn't it seems we're going to get ahead of what y'all might need if we take it back to policy committee this week next week unless I'm totally misunderstanding what you just presented >> Dr.

Lewis or Dr. King. Yeah, I would just say general feedback will be extremely helpful as we continue to um go down this path. Um and I I will say we are headed in the right direction. I know we brought some data, discipline

data to you before that we are down district-wide 17% of our um out of school suspensions with our largest decrease being with our students disabilities around 29%. So we are headed in the right direction, I think. So general feedback this evening will be helpful as we continue to garner additional feedback from additional stakeholders. That's super helpful.

My general feedback and wondering is with the with the prek to two five things that we delineated. I heard from a principal or two that they wonder if a serious safety concern specifically kind of an assault something between two students where it helps them to have a day cooling off period like whether that would be covered in this or not, whether they would still have that that discretion. um the way it's written and that was a wondering I had that that got shared with me. Um and then I thought I'd submitted this question and apparently I didn't sit my questions in. I just wrote them down.

But um I think y'all shared some explicit data with the principles at the principal meeting. I I would love to see that because what I'd heard was that we have majority of our schools, elementary schools doing very well >> and a handful that are not. And so kind of y'all's thinking on targeted interventions and supports you're giving to those seven or eight schools was would be helpful as well. >> Yeah.

If we look specifically at our kindergarten suspension, less than half of our um schools have even suspended, you know, kindergarten students. And so those numbers are you one student being suspended is one too many, right? But you look at from a um holistic standpoint of over 2,000 kindergarten students and 30 this year, I think that's the number so far. So was that a question or >> um the question was kind of the request for the data. The other question was about that safety kind of serious safety issue with very young children whether that that discretion is still here for

principles or not um in the way that this is drafted and how I wasn't sure when I read back through it whether whether that's an option or not for a kind of because in the in light of essentially not having a new directions or a place or an internal restorative practice coordinator in every elementary school, which we wish we did and we don't. Like, how is it written now specifically to address serious safety issues in y'all's reading? So, level one is addressed there that that is an opportunity um for um this level. >> Yeah, >> level two.

Um and so any type of cooling out or um head home does count as a suspension and so it will still fall underneath this guidance. principles would still have that flexibility with conferring with their principal supervisor in terms of safety um anything that is a level two offense. So, it still does provide that flexibility

there. And I also wanted to mention that we have not yet shared any of this. Want to get to our most final draft to get family feedback on this as well. And so, we just haven't had that opportunity.

>> All right, Miss Cardott and then Miss Rogers. >> Um, thanks so much for all of your work on this. this has been um great and is moving in the right direction. Um, I want to start by following up on that um, last question in response because I was in my read of the current policy.

Um, out of school suspension is still permitted for our youngest learners for level oneb infractions. And that would include non-compliance, disrespect, disruptive behavior. Am I reading that correctly? Because that is concerning to me that that's still so I have the opposite concern that it doesn't go far enough

yet. Um especially considering that for our youngest learners, the majority of if we just look at kindergarteners for example, the majority of the suspensions were due in this last year were due to non-compliance and disrespect. And I'm wondering or I have a first grader. I know they can be non-compliant and disrespectful.

Trust me, I see it every day. But is that the way is is sending them out of the school building the best we can do for those students? I will say that the team and I um and as long as um as well as the um CISS team analyze this data very thoroughly. And so what what we see across our trend um looking at our data um is that although it is um noted as disrespect the actual reading of the incident um suggests that there was an escalated um in terms of it was not properly coded. So there was some disrespect to staff but there were some other things that transpired transpired in the incident that elevates it. So we

I think it is uh two or three that are actually not falling in the the process that you're talking about where three three different students had the potential to be suspended but we are uh holistically as a as a district not suspending for disrespect. We are simply um not codifying it consistently um in terms of the incidents. So number I think that there is could be more that is done if that wants to come up to the board of education but what I'm alluding to or explaining is that's not a pervasive issue in our district. What is pervasive is taking a look at incidents, making sure that they're coded properly, um, and making sure that we have some really reflective understandings of analyzing incidents for their most escalated behavior, um, and making sure that we have that direct communication and that it's labeled correctly in the educator's handbook.

The other thing that I would say in terms of the data, um, the data that we share with principles is identifiable data and so we would not be able to share that to the board in that same way. Um, but I will be happy to share that data with you so that you can see what I'm talking about. Majority of the the things that

we're seeing that raise a red flag in terms of I'm being suspended for disrespect or insubordination. When you read what actually happened with the student, which would not be public facing information, it was um it was aggression or it was a hit, you know, it was something else to the situation. It was improperly coded. >> Thank you.

I still think that in the policy if we I it's my preference. It might not be the will of the whole board, but the majority of the board that we um we not allow suspensions for those types of behaviors and we only allow them in other more extreme cases. Um I also you're reminding me of another concern that you did mention tonight. It's in the slides. I just didn't see it in the policy yet, which is specifically noting um that there will be an examination of mitigating factors for our students with IEPs or 504s wherein we take into consideration their disability as a potential reason that they may have exhibited the behavior and

then we um consider that and whether their needs were met or not when we decide what the consequence is for that behavior. I think that's the intent and it might be what's being done or what y'all are moving towards, but it's I'd like it to be in policy. Yeah. >> Um and I think the last I also I'd like um inclusion of prek.

I hear there's some complications with that, but I think official inclusion of our prek um through third grade would be my preference. Again, don't know if it's the will of the whole board, but it's mine. Um, and then I love the principal supervisor review, but I wonder what's what would is that possible for all elementary school suspensions? What would that look like if there were a principal supervisor review for all of our prek through five suspensions, for example? So, another layer of review. So I think looking at the number of suspensions we have right now 15 112 115 um it's possible um and um it is

something that our um assistant superintendent with the f my fellow assistant superintendents um that supervised principles are ready to execute at at the will of the board. It's just around what other operational structures are we going to put in place and how we um streamline that at K K5 with both assistant superintendents and how that would look. And then we just want to be clear again where that flexibility is with certain incidents in the policy which is now codified and where there's explicit um written in the policy where it's explicitly you have to um confer with your principal supervisor as well as where you u where we suggest you confer with your principal supervisor. So all that to say, yes, it's something that we can operationalize if that's the will of the board in in support of um this policy revisions.

>> Thank you. And along those lines, last thing just to put this out there in case others are interested um and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on another layer of review for those students with disabilities. So to make sure that someone with some expertise in that area can evaluate whether that's the best

mechanism for that student. Either putting them out of school or sending them to New Directions or hearing some challenges with what happens with students that have various disabilities when they're placed in places like New Directions or again when they're punished with suspension and whether that's appropriate for them or not. All right, Vice Chair Rogers and then Mr. T.

Like many of my colleagues, I'm very impressed about where this is headed. Thank you. I appreciate you. Um, I don't know what the consensus of the board is on this, but I finally realized for me where the disconnect is between the board and where y'all are.

And so we're talking about restorative conversations and restorative circles as a response to what's happening in lie of suspension. And what truly I think the board would like to see happening is the restorative conversations and circles and practices being taught and implemented by students by educators and students before an event happens. So it's not an alternative to suspension. It is something that happens as a learning mechanism, teaching mechanism so that students understand when things get tense how they how we have conversations about it and how we keep kicking from from kicking prevent kicking another student or prevent um throwing something at the teacher.

Right? So we make sure that those things are happening. those restorative

conversations, those uh temperamental things, behavior things are happening before um an incident occurs. I think the other piece to that is I hear administration saying and and like Beyer, I've heard from principles about how it's functioning well in many of our elementary schools. We do appreciate that work and know it's not easy uh in keeping our students in school. I think my question would be in the schools where it's not working efficiently, how can the board be assured by the MTSS office and superintendent etc.

that um systems are in place at those schools to teach restorative practices before incidents begin to occur. Right? And

even when there's a disconnect between educators and the principles, how are they using restorative practices to help um build those relationships before the tension builds so high that it's reflected in the teacher working condition survey, right? Um and so how do we make this a pattern of use of restorative practices and not an item or a tool for disciplinary action? Um, so you're speaking my language. Uh, Vice Chair Rogers, I just want to say that, you know, over the years, what we have really tried to build is a system of 80% of restorative practices is proactive.

That's what our social emotional learning curriculum that you all provide for us um through your your um through your funding um and prioritizing that for us. That's what that is all about is making sure that 80% of our work is every day. How do we show up? How do we treat one another?

How do we build relationships? How do we build trust? And then if something does occur that we should expect among human interactions, we have the capital to respond to that in a way that is restorative and built around restoring those relationships and repairing them as opposed to just being a punishment focused response. And so now we've got that codified.

So, we we agree with you. I I don't think I think there's less of a disconnect. We just really wanted to stay focused on the revisions and how restorative practices impacted that u the policy. >> Okay, that's helpful.

Thank you. >> I had one question just left me come back. >> Mr. I'd just add to that you know one of the things that we do through our impact structure um impact meeting structure which is which is really important as it relates to this is part excuse me part of the conversations that we have with administrators would be around how they are using those

um seal curriculums right and specifically um opportunities to match um what they report to us about their use of SEAL structures and the discipline data that we see relative to those schools. So for instance um very often you might see us working in a school and they you know they speak to us about you know a challenge around certain behaviors and that provides us with an opportunity to ask them and and work with them around you know how they are leveraging um and and frankly personalizing um those seal curriculums to to speak specifically um to those challenges. Um and so to your question about how we um kind of assure the board that that that work is going on that that happens through our impact structure, our impact meeting structure. Um and you know that that would be our response to that. My question that I remembered is that

report out you were talking about the reporting is identifiable that goes to the principles except and that it would have to be presented to the board differently. Obviously, we don't want identifiable information. That's not what we're asking for. I think can you help us and the public understand?

Um if it's going through the process, the teacher enters the write up and educator's handbook. it goes to the principal. The principal's already identified that already knows the students that are being suspended and are already interacting with the educators in the school building. So, can you talk to us about the process of why you're reporting that data back to the principles but not to the board?

Like I don't Does that make sense? >> No. Let me say it one more time. >> All right. So, I'm principal of XYZ school and educators put in their write

up an educator handbook. It goes to the principal's desk. The principal administers the suspension or the disciplinary action, whatever it is for the student. When you're go when you say you're reporting the data back to the principal, what is the purpose?

What is the conversation of the report back to the principal? if the principal is the one that took the action. >> Gotcha. So, um um disciplinary responses are shared responsibility amongst all administrators.

The meeting that we were in were just principles. APS are in in a lot of cases the primary uh person that issues that response to a particular incident. And so the the the whole point of sharing that data was a reflection point for principles since that is often delegated especially in larger schools to look across the decision- making that's happened in the administrative team and see where they see congruence, see where they see variance. So it really was a reflective activity to say let's look at this situation without how it was coded. Let's read this situation very deeply and think about what would

we code it as. Okay, what would we code it as? Now let's look at how it was coded. Oh, there was some nuance there.

So it's it's really just reflective and um those conversations happen in cycles. We would we typically have a cadence where we meet with principles then APs then coaches and district staff and so um this data was shared for that point because the principal is not the sole person that issues a response to an incident and so wanting them to reflect on the work that needs to happen at the instructional leadership team level on how we get a better alignment with our responses to incidents. >> Thank you. I think there's a disconnect in community about the way this process works and the impact that the board has on those conversations.

But the fact that you all are having those conversations is important to demonstrate and I appreciate that >> Mr. T. >> Uh thank you very much. Thank you all for this u information. It's very important and you all are definitely moving in the um right direction. My question is around um unhoused students.

Do we keep data on students who may be unhoused like we do with EC students, but what is that like? And I want to see whether or not um with students being unhoused, if they're being suspended, are we doing interventions of their situation? So I will say that our educator's handbook which is our um nonofficial data curation system that is report then translated over to infinite campus um our state level school information system um does not um consider that type of um designation for a student. We can um make note of that in terms of our um monthly and quarterly disagregate conversations to make sure we tease that out.

But currently both systems um do not delineate for unhouse um students and families. >> Yes. Well, I I would then recommend suggest that whatever we can do to locally be able to track that be very important. Thank you. >> Other questions or comments from board

members, >> Miss Aragoff? >> I just again wanted to um appreciate all the work that has been done on this. This is a a huge step for this policy moving for me it translates as a um articulating better the culture we're trying to create with restorative practices in all of our buildings and and also um I hope it says you know it it states that like in for for our school system that we have a universal principle of suspensions um not being um a healthy option. um suspensions can actually cause our students more harm um for various reasons um socially, emotionally, um it, you know, it it's feeding, you know, our lack of um our um absenteeism, chronic absenteeism, all of these different things. Um, so

I love the direction that the policy is moving in and just wanted to, you know, to be reminded that I hope in another iteration as we continue to change shift the culture that we have more conversations about the difference between restorative practice and restorative justice um and that we continue to um understand how we can be a school system that doesn't have suspensions for K5 at all or have any need for that because we have the resources in place to get there to do that. Um I don't want suspensions to be an option for um classroom management. Um I would like if if in there's that word again, exagent the one I can't say circumstances. um that those be authentic, truly, you know, unequivocally, you know, serious, dangerous, you know,

situations that we aren't able to mitigate in some, you know, lifethreatening where and I it's hard to imagine what that developmentally what that looks like for elementary school. So, um, yep. I just wanted to keep that lens there. I also heard, um, uh, Miss Carter Autton mentioned, you know, thinking about instead of just K2, extending it to K3 data is closer to because I really would love to see K5, you know, no suspensions.

I really would love to see not even considered an elementary school. Um, of course, you know, with with um good options for, you know, with training, all the things around restorative practice and restorative justice. I think that's one of the things that Miss Rogers brought up about, you know, you know, it's it's restorative practice is not the thing that is disciplinary. Um, and there's, you know, cultural aspects of

restorative practice um that we haven't gotten to yet as a district that we're still trying to implement. um restorative justice is a conversation that we don't often talk about but I think we're kind of referring to and there's a lot of misunderstanding about what that is and that is that is more um you know could be more in a disciplinary discussion about you know once once something has occurred and it wasn't handled properly or it's caused harm then how do you how do you rectify that? So, um, restorative practices are not the end all beall solution to every single thing. Um, but it is something that I'm very proud of in our district.

And I'm so glad that we're moving to really just make sure that that culture is pervasive throughout. Um, and that's just a comment. No, no questions. Any other questions, Beyer?

>> Yeah, I hear us um questioning third grade and um no one wants anyone suspended out of school in elementary school at all. I do want to share that and share for the community that wasn't able to be at the committee meeting that the the committee kind of landed on preK2 because for third through fifth grade we do have um new directions and and services and supports for students there and knowing what a massive shift this alone is going to be for staff this late in the year um running into summer as we're making massive cuts with an underfunded county budget, a state budget that isn't a real solution is just the back of an envelope right now and so much uncertainty with future staffing and and a lotments. I think it felt like the most we could do when to me at least. And so that's where at least the prek2 as a starting place came

from. I'm not sure if we got prek in the policy language and I'm sitting here trying to find where it would be. I don't know if it's if we got that notion of preschool. It's not it's not >> it is not in there due to the comp the federal we're not you know >> we're going to work with Jason on that.

That >> that would be great. That would be great. Thank you. >> Any other comments or questions from my colleagues?

I really appreciate this presentation and all the direction that we're going in. I I remember bringing restorative practices and us talking about let's transition to this as a district. And so I'm glad to be where we are and and recognize it will continue to be an evolving practice as we continue to have people come and they need to be up to speed, right? And that will continue to be an evolving practice. I think one of the questions that I'm wrestling with and I hope that we can think about this differently is like what will it take to keep this child in school? So when said child is in the office and we're talking

about suspension, what would it actually take to keep little Johnny, Lil Sarah, whoever it is in school? And then how are we building the resources to do that? Because at this point with the numbers trending in and to where they are, we we know these individual students, we know their needs, what they might need to be connected to, what resources in the community they might need. And so how are we building our arsenal around not how do we you know not suspend but what does it take to keep them engaged in learning?

What does it take to keep them engaged in the classroom? So I just really and hope that we can keep pondering that question as we're navigating um alternatives to suspension or not suspending at all keeping kids learning. This is for first rate Beyer. >> Yeah that was a great point. uh chair said that convers one of the conversations I had with school staff was that sometimes there's a delay in students getting the the evaluation they need for potential 504 services like that window of time for a school once

they start to see needs that students have but until the team can get in there and do their assessment is almost sometimes a six to eight week window sometimes that kind of thing if there are ways that we can actually kind of have a stat response triage better. I don't know with with district support and resources was something that came up in conversation. I don't know if y'all had heard that as well, but um it's a very very complex issue and I glad you're going to continue to listen and and support our staff through this transition. Um thank you.

>> Well, I'm I just say to your to your point, board member Byer, any student that's um suspected of having a a disability uh whether they qualify or not yet um still treated as if they if they do have a disability in terms of that 10day max for school suspension. So they still have those procedural safeguards. I just wanted to point that

out. >> Makes me wonder if we start at a fiveday something too, right? as we're looking at decreasing suspensions. Uh because by the time you get to 10, that's that's a significant chunk of time for a kindergartener, elementary school student to be at that's chronic absenteeism.

And that this probably is already a part of the MTSS process, but once you get to two, three, five, what are we already doing to to do some of that assessment and the reevaluation? This is for first reading board member. So, um motion, if we feel ready. So, I was going to move that we take 4301 to our June work session because it sounded like y'all needed more time to get staff feedback. >> Second been moved that we move policy 4301 to the June work session. And it will that be for a first read, Miss Berg, another first read or would you

I know it's timesensitive for you all. Is is June work session the latest we should go? I'm assuming. Yeah, it'll be for second read.

>> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. So the motion is to approve it for first reading, move it to second read at the discussion rather than consent since you might make changes that we've talked about tonight.

That's it. >> That sounds good. And it's been seconded by Miss Rogers. Is there any other discussion?

>> Yep. Miss Rogers. So will we wave our work session policy to approve the policy at work session? >> We can.

So I'd like that noted in the motion if that's okay. I think I would um >> or just wait till when? >> Yes. Because we don't know what's going to be >> going to be ready.

>> Okay. >> We're I can't predict. We we definitely hope that the the policy will be passed. So, we can't predict that at this point.

Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed?

Use the same sign. It passes 6. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.

Thank you all. That brings us to the next items on our agenda which are for information only. And that brings us next to the summary of follow-up items. Pass it over to Dr.

Lewis or staff. I'll be happy to chime in. As far as followup, there were some we took some some notes gathering the feedback from the board on what to do back in policy. So specifically to policy 4326 policy committee will be looking at uh the data reporting to the board some of the data collection and the timeline for notifying parents. 2 to the staff will continue gathering input and those were the major pieces of um

followup around policies. >> Right. Any other uh Miss Buyer comments on that? Did you all did we have consensus or were you all able to share the discipline data that you shared with principles that I think I asked it and didn't actually ask people to whether they were interested in seeing it is that that's a question for the board.

Is there consensus on that data? >> I think so because I think I must have left it sit there. board members would we like to see >> would it be deidentified or presented in a form that was manageable or allowable? >> Yeah.

So there is consensus it looks like from board members that we would like to see that data. We'll add that to the summary of follow-up items. >> Got it. Thank you.

>> All right. The next item is a close session. I'll take a motion to go into close. >> Move that we go into close session for the reasons stated on the agenda. >> Second. It's been moved by Beyer,

seconded by Miss Carda-Auten that we go into close session for the reasons stated on the agenda. Is there any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I.

>> I. Any opposed, use the same sign. It passes 6. We are now moved into close session. For all those who are streaming with us, we will not return to streaming after close. Have a good evening.