School Committee - February 6 2025
Policy Discussion and Work Progress
-
Policy Goals: The committee set goals earlier for what they wanted to accomplish during the year. They agreed not to vote on proposals to bring to the school committee to maintain flexibility.
-
Work Flexibility: A decision was made early on that they would not vote on specific proposals but rather stay flexible in how they worked on these policies and presented them to the school committee. This allowed for work outside of committee meetings, within reasonable bounds as understood by all members, to prepare the proposals effectively.
-
Ongoing Work: It was recognized at times that there might be some work left to complete beyond regular committee sessions, but it should be done in a way consistent with their established purpose and within agreed-upon parameters.
Summary: The focus on flexibility allowed for better preparation and presentation of policy proposals while ensuring all members understood the scope of work.
Committee Dynamics and Communication
- Flexibility and Goals: Members acknowledged that staying flexible was important to achieving their goals, allowing them to adapt as necessary without formal votes at every step. This ensured everyone remained aligned with the committee’s purpose.
Summary: The emphasis on maintaining open communication and flexibility helped ensure all members were in agreement about ongoing work.
Public Comments
- Public Input: While specific public comments are not detailed, it’s understood that public input was likely considered throughout discussions to ensure community needs were addressed appropriately.
Summary: Incorporating public feedback ensured the policies align with broader community expectations.
Motion for Adjournment and Voting
- Adjournment: A motion was made to adjourn the meeting. The vote results showed unanimous agreement among members present (Alan, Dan, Adam) to conclude the session.
Summary: The meeting concluded smoothly with all members in agreement, ensuring closure without dissent.
Overall, this meeting provided clarity on how the committee planned and worked towards achieving policy goals while emphasizing flexibility and open communication. The inclusion of public input further ensured that community needs were addressed effectively.
Transcript and Video
Good evening and welcome to the February 5th open meeting of the Sharon School Committee, which is being conducted remotely, consistent with an act relative to extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency signed into law on June 16th, 2021, as amended and extended through March of 2025.
These provisions allow public bodies to meet remotely as long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting.
For this meeting, the school committee, meeting of the school committee, we are convening by Zoom.
Members of the public have been provided with access information so they can follow the meeting remotely.
All votes will be conducted via roll call.
The first thing on the agenda is community comments.
In the past, I have requested that people turn on their cameras.
The reason for this is because there's something goes on with the sharing TV cameras where it doesn't focus on the person's screen when it's off.
And so your face is not shown.
It's like one of our faces gets shown.
So that's why we would like you to.
turn on your screen so the focus is on you and what you're saying.
But we definitely need both your first and last name.
And most people have that in their little name on their page.
I will now start with questions.
Mr. O'Brien, you have two minutes.
Is Adam here?
Yep, I got the timer.
Thank you.
Julie?
Yes.
Can you, did you read our non-discrimination statement?
No, I did not.
Would you mind reading it, please?
Can you find it?
Please?
I don't have it right now.
Mr. O'Brien, please go.
Happy National Girls and Women's in Sports Day.
Talk about timely.
After our last meeting, I sent a letter to the White House and included a picture of the all-gender sign at College Elementary.
I implored President Trump to help parents in blue states that seem to have no intent on obeying his executive orders.
I told him he should withhold federal funding just as they are doing for sanctuary cities.
I will send him a letter every two weeks until the signs come down and I am assured the American flag will be the only flag
on school grounds.
While he has issued two executive orders, including one ending indoctrination in grades K through 12, we as parents must stop the radical left's pushing of gender insanity and trying to defeminize our daughters.
Standing strong in your convictions and standing up for what is right and wrong defines one's character.
We must all stand up to combat this issue.
We can't sit quietly on the sidelines because the left will not stop trying to indoctrinate our children.
It is not only important for our well-being, but for the well-being of our kids, grandkids, and the nation.
I learned that a person called James Newton, a keyboard warrior, took to Facebook to besmirch my name and the names of other parents.
This person appears to be a middle school teacher.
Julie, we have a very clear policy around
around some of the personal attacks.
And I mean, it is not appropriate for a member of the public to target another individual by mentioning names.
And it's certainly Mr. O'Brien.
Oh, pardon me, I'm sorry.
And talk about Facebook.
If you want to talk about Facebook on Facebook, do that.
You get your two minutes and I respect those two minutes.
Don't bring social media stuff to this table and certainly don't do it while mentioning other members of the public by name.
Okay, I apologize.
That won't happen again.
My mistake.
Jay and everybody else, I will say that although you are free to criticize, as we know from the Supreme Judicial Court, any member of the school committee, because we're public figures, please do not mention other people by name.
I apologize.
Okay, thank you.
It won't happen again.
Okay, so, oh, so I'll finish up.
As for the bathroom at Cottage, I have been to a McDonald's, Showcase Cinema's movie theater, South Station in Boston, several office buildings in Boston, and not in one of these adult locations have I found an all-gender labeled restroom, only in an elementary school in Sharon and Cottage.
I've reached the conclusion this bathroom was installed during the time when schools were locked down, while parents were distracted, and of course, not notified.
The fight against trans ideology against our children is on its last legs.
Parents, it's time to sweep the leg.
They, them, are now, was, were.
Thank you, and God bless.
Okay, Ms.
Conroy?
Sorry, Juliette.
Yeah, can I jump in just really quickly?
Yes.
Shawna had asked, and so I just wanted to call out that on the bottom of our agenda, it does say, and I'm happy to read, chairing public schools does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, gender identity, homelessness, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
And that is always printed on our agendas.
Thank you.
Thank you, Adam.
Okay, Ms.
Conroy.
Hello, my name is Katie Conroy.
My family and I, like many others in town, chose to move to Sharon for the fantastic school system.
Two years ago, I was thrilled to see that free full-day kindergarten was going to be offered in our town going forward.
This past year, I was very discouraged to learn that free full-day kindergarten was rescinded indefinitely due to budget constraints.
The vast majority of cities and towns in Massachusetts offer free full day kindergarten.
As Sharon is a highly regarded school system in the state, it is shameful that we are not providing our youngest learners with the same opportunity as most of their peers across the state.
We should be investing in our youngest learners, not penalizing them for mistakes and misunderstandings made two years ago.
Free full-day kindergarten was fought for, supported by our town, and promised to our residents going forward two years ago.
Free full-day kindergarten should still be a priority to provide the best start for our children and to attract young families to move to our great town.
I understand that there are budget constraints, but I do think it is imperative that our school system budget be reviewed to see what creative solutions can be made to deliver on the promises that were made to Sharon residents.
Since it is only the beginning of February, I am looking forward to seeing what creative solutions the school committee will come up with to offer free full day kindergarten to our children beginning in September.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Patty,
Goulding.
Hold on one second.
I'm trying to get you.
Did I get you?
Yes, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
My name is Patty Goulding.
I'm an IA at Cottage.
I have a bachelor's degree.
I've held different roles in education for over 18 years.
I've spent more than 10 years in the financial services industry and I've raised four children.
I am one of 11 dedicated pair of professionals at Cottage Street School where there are currently three open IA positions.
I personally support 20 children on IEPs.
I work in nine different classrooms.
My schedule's jam-packed.
In addition to academics, I support students at lunch, specials, and recess.
I know the math curriculum as well as the teachers.
I am learning the newly adopted CKLA curriculum on my own time.
I support all students who require help, not just the students I'm assigned to.
I have connections with many students because I've been a dependable presence in their classrooms year after year.
I have an extremely strong relationship with teachers.
They rely on me to carry out lesson plans, consult with me about students, and my presence in the classroom allows them to conduct both group and individualized instruction without interruption.
In the halls, I support students that are upset
that can't open a locker, that are having problems with a peer, that need the nurse, that need a bandaid, that need help with zippers, shoes, boots, gloves, and a whole host of other things.
I get a one half hour unpaid lunch break, which I very rarely get to on time because I can't just walk away from a student in the middle of learning.
Myself and all IAs do this and much, much more every single day, but two minutes is not nearly enough time to fill you in.
IAs are incredibly important, and I honestly couldn't imagine what our education system would be without the support the IAs provide.
We do this on a salary far below a living wage.
We make substantially less than teachers, yet we pay a higher percentage of our health insurance.
And I know I personally would never have taken this job when I was younger because there's no parental leave.
Sharon needs to start treating their IAs with respect they deserve, and then and only then will they be able to attract and retain the dedicated professional instructional assistants that can support the learning of all students.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms.
Golding.
Hala Mustafa?
Oh, sorry, Hala.
Did you?
OK.
Thanks, Judy.
Hi, everyone.
I'm Hala Mustafa.
I'm speaking today about the ongoing pattern of ignoring minorities and immigrants in decision making, whether it was the unjust calendar vote at the last school committee meeting or the proposed change to the policy JIH.
Too often, our voices are overlooked and our concerns are either misunderstood or dismissed entirely.
It seemed that until an immigrant parent has a seat at the school...
...cohered or understood...
The proposed change for the JIH policy put vulnerable students, particularly immigrants, minorities, and students with disabilities at a greater risk by weakening parental protections during law enforcement questioning.
The current SPS policy ensures that all students under age of 18 have a parent present
during a law enforcement questions.
But the proposed change allows 14 to 17-year-old students to have this right or to be questioned alone if parents are unreachable.
This ignores well-established legal and psychological research showing that minors lack the maturity to navigate law enforcement interactions alone and are more susceptible to coercion.
Massachusetts case law and federal rulings reinforce the need for stronger safeguards, not weaker ones.
Historically, Sharon has pride itself on protecting student rights.
Yet this change favors law enforcement convenience over the student's best interest.
School committee and administration must ask themselves, why are they prioritizing legal and police perspectives over the voices of families, child advocates, and civil rights experts?
If this policy disproportionately harms marginalized community, it's not just a policy change.
It is an injustice and racism.
There is no legal requirement forcing shadow students' protections.
Finish up, please.
You're over time.
Okay.
And if the memorandum of understanding with the police is in conflict, then the memorandum, not the student rights, should be reconsidered.
I urge the school committee to reject this change and uphold the protections to all students, regardless of their backgrounds.
Thank you, Julie.
Thank you.
Evgenia Vasilets.
Ms.
Vasilets, did you get...
I wrote it down so you're not going to listen to my second language.
We diverse town with students from different cultures and all of us celebrate variety of holidays.
And if we will accommodate every holiday, our school year will extend into July.
Ten days ago, I started petition considering federal holidays only calendar for sharing public school next year and received 310 signatures.
I did send a report to you.
I'm asking, please think about federal holidays only for 2025-2026.
Let students to, you know, celebrate the holidays they choose, give them excuse absence.
And this proposition doesn't devalue any cultural or religious holiday.
It promotes unity and shows respect for our diverse community.
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Carmody.
Hello.
Can you hear me?
Yeah.
Thank you, Julie.
I would like to provide input prior to the discussion and vote on those changes to the school calendar.
My overarching input is to ensure the school district prioritizes quality education and effective use of time during the school year to develop.
to deliver the strong curriculum, but balance this with a sensitivity to individual families' religious beliefs and holiday celebrations.
Families should be able to keep their child out of school as an excused absence to observe a religious holiday that is meaningful to them.
I believe it's appropriate to observe federal holidays as the primary construct for our school calendar, as these are most widely observed and unifying across America.
I've seen an increase in the number of communities and corporate organizations providing federal holidays and two to three personal choice allowance days for individuals.
This would be including for teachers and school administrators to use as they deem most appropriate for their own family needs.
A form of this could be adopted by Sharon Public Schools.
With an understanding, teachers will not be administering any tests or set deadlines for what's submitted on any significant religious holiday throughout the year.
Finally, I deem it important for the school calendar to end by mid-June at the latest in any given year.
Temperatures start to rise significantly, I have to think about that now, making it uncomfortable work and learning environments.
Many camp education and enrichment and travel study abroad programs start by mid-June.
Many community members have extended families overseas and use summer break to spend time visiting and caring for loved ones who are far from home.
And finally, older children in our community often seek summer employment opportunities that commence in mid-June.
Please do not extend the school calendar beyond the current 180 days.
Look for ways to more effectively use the time available throughout the year and fully evaluate the potential to include two to three family choice days for excused absences.
Thank you so much.
Oh, wow, that was a bang on, Phil, thank you.
Erin Silver, Ms.
Silver.
Hello, everyone.
Thank you for allowing me time to talk tonight.
I am Erin Silver.
I'm a middle school science teacher, and I'm reading a letter on behalf of one of our Sharon Middle School Bridges Program teachers, Stephanie Feeney.
Dear Sharon School Committee, I'm writing to you to advocate for our instructional assistance.
IAs do the majority of the hands-on work with our students every day, providing personalized support, assisting with classroom management, and helping ensure that students are receiving the attention and guidance that they need to thrive in all areas of their school day.
This includes academically, behaviorally, socially, and emotionally.
IAs have a deep understanding of students' needs, strengths, and challenges.
The school simply could not function effectively without their support.
However, despite the important role they play, IAs continue to be undercompensated for their hard work.
Many of them are paid at a level that does not reflect the value that they bring to the educational experience, nor do they have the access to benefits that adequately support their well-being.
Given the demands of their work, it is only fair that they receive a higher pay and better insurance benefits.
I strongly encourage the school committee to prioritize increasing the pay and benefits for our instructional assistants.
Thank you for taking time.
Thanks, Ms.
Silver.
Ikra Javid, and I'm sorry if I didn't say your name correctly.
That's okay.
You did say it correctly.
So my name is Ikra Javid, and I wanted to comment on two issues today.
First, I wanted to comment on the GIH policy.
I do not support changing the policy because the 14 to 18-year-old age range is a very vulnerable age.
vulnerable population.
They don't understand the complexities of our society and law enforcement.
And I cannot imagine someone that age being questioned by law enforcement without a parent being present.
I'm a physician.
And in my practice, I see a lot of young adults.
So these are people who have college degrees.
They have jobs.
They're very competent.
And almost all of the time when they're seeing me, they come in with a parent.
And that's because they don't feel comfortable seeing me and just being alone in that situation.
They don't know how to handle some information.
So they feel more comfortable when their parent is there and they can provide more information.
and understand what's going on.
So how can we expect children who are much younger than that to interact with police or other law personnel without any parents?
So I urge everyone on the school committee not to change the current policy because it's protecting our vulnerable children.
The other issue I want to comment on is the school calendar.
So as you all know, we had a discussion last year to acknowledge and add other religious or cultural holidays.
And the result of that was very disappointing because some holidays were only given half days off, which does not really make any sense.
I'm not really sure what the purpose of a half day is because if I'm sending my child to school or keeping them home, it doesn't matter if it's a half day or full day.
I count it as a day off.
And I'm not sure if we're given the half day, if it means the children are only allowed to celebrate their holiday for that half day.
So they just go to school and then forget about their holiday for the rest of the day.
So I want to urge the school committee members to consider the diverse population of Sharon and treat everyone equally and not give preference to certain religions or cultures.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ben Feinberg.
Thank you, Julie, and go birds.
Go birds.
I just want to comment briefly on the calendar as well.
You know, the job of government bodies in setting up their structures, which includes calendars, is to do what's best for their function.
And the function of the schools is obviously to educate the kids.
Having
all sorts of different holidays on the school calendar doesn't serve that purpose.
It doesn't serve the purpose of accommodating particular kids.
It doesn't serve the purpose of fostering education.
What it does is promote the individual holidays that are posted on there.
And it values some over others by giving them a full day over a half day or a half day over no day.
And to be honest, that's kind of inappropriate.
The appropriate place to allow for accommodation of religious practice of students and staff is in attendance policies.
Now, I get that there will be days potentially where there isn't sufficient staffing to hold the day because of religious accommodation.
And that's fine.
And the school administration needs to identify those days and those days should appear on the calendar as such.
But
To be honest, other religious holidays should not be on the calendar in any way, shape, or form.
There shouldn't be a Rosh Hashanah on there if the schools have enough staff to run on there.
There shouldn't be Eid on there if the schools have enough staff to run on there.
The choices of individuals to observe and practice their religion is an individual choice.
And people shouldn't be pushed into that or have that promoted to them by government bodies.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Lori Davis, hold on, sorry.
Did you get it?
Hold on.
Oh, there you go.
Okay, great.
So I'm speaking tonight in favor of curriculum coordinators with the talk of the budget going around and there's been a lot of conversation around what a curriculum coordinator does as opposed to a department head.
So I'm here to speak about the differences and I have firsthand knowledge of that as I was a department head in my last district.
So I want to be very clear about what the curriculum coordinators bring that a department head cannot.
So at my last district, I was department head and I was required to run a small department of seven people, teach two classes on a block schedule, which was 84 minute periods, develop curriculum, attend building meetings and conduct observations, which held no real power.
since I was in the same bargaining unit as teachers.
The job was unmanageable as I would be failing either the oversight of the department or in the job of teaching.
And since I've come to Sharon, I observed the work curriculum coordinators do here and I found them to be nothing short of amazing.
They are experts, experts in their fields.
providing classroom observations, which are especially useful now that we are down a vice principal at the high school.
They provide knowledge of the standards and latest pedagogy and writing curriculum for both the middle and high school.
Without them, the departments would be lost.
And I mean, no disrespect to the work that Dr. Joycelyn does, but to take the curriculum coordinators out of the role, you would be putting the burden of oversight on Dr. Joycelyn for running the whole curriculum of this entire district
K through 12, and to be knowledgeable about this curriculum, which is specialized for each discipline.
A department head would not have the same power or control over alignment from the middle school to high school, something that we are constantly evaluating and improving on.
To list the jobs that these coordinators do would take longer than the two minutes that you will have given me to speak.
However, to say that a district will pay the price in test scores and in rigor and in alignment cannot be understated.
If your sole purpose is to save money, cutting these vital jobs without understanding the premises of them will only later create problems that will require more money and time to fix.
They are trained experts.
If we lose them, this district will suffer and we will no longer be able to remain at the top of the state's performing districts.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sorry, Matt Fenlon.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Last month, the school committee voted once again to charge parents over $3,600 for full day kindergarten.
This continues to make Sharon an extreme outlier in Massachusetts as nearly 95% of districts fund full day kindergarten.
Since last month, at least 80 families have reached out to the school committee requesting the school committee reconsider by reducing the fee
for next year and identifying a path for full funding thereafter.
The majority of school community members have agreed kindergarten should be fully funded, so that is a good start.
However, there is still time for the school committee to take action before submitting a final budget next month.
Kindergarten is essential for a child's education and should not be treated as a user fee.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fenlon.
Lauren Grasso, two minutes.
Did it not work?
I'm sorry.
I'm good.
Good evening.
At a time when our students need protection more than ever, lowering the age at which they are questioned by law enforcement places our most vulnerable students at even greater risk.
Students between the ages of 14 and 18 are still very much minors and should always have a guardian present for any questioning conducted by anyone other than our trusted school staff.
I also want to address an example shared by a member of the school committee on Facebook.
But before I get into that, I feel it's important to note that using social media to discuss such critical matters concerning our district is inappropriate.
If the committee wishes to engage with the public, conversations should be allowed to take place here in a formal public forum, not on social media.
Returning to the example posted on Facebook about a student overdosing on school property, I don't believe that allowing law enforcement to question students would have any positive impact on the situation raised.
In fact, I believe that in an incident of this nature, Narcan would be administered regardless of questioning, as most overdoses are opioid related and Narcan causes no harm if opioids are not present in the system.
I expect the members of the school committee to use our policies to ensure the safety and rights of our students rather than stripping them of those rights.
Thank you.
Thanks, Ms.
Grasso.
Ms.
Crosby.
Hold on.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
Okay.
Did you get it, Judy?
Yeah, I did.
Thank you.
So first, I thought I'd help you out by reminding you and strongly encouraging every school committee member to go and actually crack open your policy book and look at Policy AC, which is your general non-discrimination policy, Julie.
Look at Policy ACA, which is your non-discrimination policy on the basis of sex, gender, and
gender identity, sexuality orientation, and look at policy ACE, which is your non-discrimination on the basis of disability.
Don't just look at them.
Please actually dig in, give it your attention, and read them.
Because watching the school committee is quite painful.
Recently, without any opportunity for public comment,
You listen to your administration tell you that they were going to remove the listing for foundation courses from your program of studies.
Don't worry, they're still going to provide the courses, but just those sped kids take them.
Literal quote.
Go back and watch your meeting.
That is shameful.
And none of you said, hey, that's a weird thing to say.
By the way, also not true.
If you had talked to your SPED administrator as well as CPAC, you would have known better.
But you were in such a rush to approve this thing that you let an administrator come to the table, disparage SPED kids, and then said, well, you know, we have other SPED programs that aren't listed in the program of study.
So it makes sense to do away with these.
What is the matter with you?
Do you not understand how othering and disgusting that is?
Do you not understand what it means to a parent whose child has been recommended for a foundations class to open their program of studies and not see it there?
Okay.
Do better.
Read your policies.
When someone asks the chair of this school committee to read the non-discrimination statement that's on your agenda, do better.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms.
Crosby.
Georgeann Lewis.
Hi, good evening.
Thank you.
So I'm just going to
Tackle, piggyback, I'm not gonna get into some big lectures.
I just wanna voice that I'm very concerned about the way this district is moving.
We're moving further and further away from being student-centered.
To Ms.
Crosby's point, to others' points about the 14 to 18 year old,
proposed change, the calendar not being federal.
I just want to speak out and say I am a proponent of following a federal calendar, keeping the policy for 14 to 18-year-olds the way it is, and probably
Also, as equally important, if not more, is we need to take care of all of our staff.
We need to maintain our staffing ratios, our integrity.
Special education numbers are way out of whack.
And we do not take care of our instructional aides.
And this stuff needs to change if we want to be not just high performing, but student centered.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms.
Lewis.
Linda Chivakova, I'm going to unmute you.
Get two minutes, Linda.
Thank you, Julie.
Do you hear me?
Yes.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
All right.
I didn't write anything down.
I just wanted to talk to you, even though it just gets two minutes.
For those of you who don't know me, I am both parent here.
I have child in every single school, elementary, middle, and high.
And I'm also a teacher, an eighth grade science teacher.
I am here to talk about the calendar, mostly as a parent, but also as a teacher.
I would prefer from both of my positions for it to be a federal days only calendar.
I don't want to repeat all the reasons that were said, but I want to just give some examples and maybe some perspective.
When Rotary Alliance Club a few years ago did a big survey of how many nationalities are in town, it was more than 80.
80 nationalities, different religions.
We are a super diverse town.
And by trying to offer everybody a day or half a day, we just cannot do it.
We have a huge Russian population.
We are not offering Orthodox Christmas.
We're not offering three...
King's Day.
My Polish and Eastern European friends out there, we are not offering dingus or Easter Monday after Easter, right?
We just cannot accommodate.
And it's not ideal to have federal-only calendar, but it's the most fair I think we can have to not to have some families feel
that they are overlooked and excluded.
For example, my family feels this way with the calendar.
I also, as a teacher, would like to say that half day means I have 20 plus minutes with each class in middle school.
That means I can teach for 15 minutes per class on that day.
So you can see that's probably not much I can teach on that day.
So those days are not useful and effective in school.
So I would urge you to relook at again and look at the petition that Evgenia sent you that over 300 people just in 10 days said, of course, I want federal days only calendar.
I think it would be the most fair as a parent and as a teacher.
Very much.
Thanks, Linda.
Wendy MacArthur.
There you go.
First of all, I just want to start off by saying, you know, I am so deeply disappointed by this administration that they have failed to acknowledge or address the impact of recent comments made by both the government officials and the members of our town, particularly on our most
of marginalized students.
These students already face significant challenges and the rhetoric being used only exasperates their struggles, creating an environment that feels increasingly hostile and unwelcoming.
I want to express my gratitude to Shauna tonight for taking the time to clearly articulate the committee's position.
Thank you, Shauna, for putting that out there that this is what the committee
is standing for.
I wish the administration would do the same.
However, if the commitment is truly sincere, then the committee must also recognize that the proposed policy change lowering the age requirement from 18 to 14 will have a direct and disproportionate impact on these very students.
As a district, we have a commitment to a mission that states
Quote, from the website, we strive to provide educational community that nurtures each student on their unique journey, unique journey to be lifelong learners and caring and engaged citizens of our world.
If we truly uphold this mission, we must consider not just the intent of our policies, but their real world consequences.
A nurturing educational community does not ignore the voices of our most vulnerable students, nor does it enact policies that might further marginalize them.
I urge the committee and the administration to take a step back, listen to those most effective,
and ensure that any change made to reflect our collective responsibility to create a truly supportive and educational environment for all.
And then I also want to say, I 100% support all of our IA instructors and assistants.
They're amazing.
Thanks, Wendy.
That was bang on.
Hema, did you get it?
You got it?
Oh.
You all set?
Sorry, am I up?
You're on, yeah.
Okay, great.
Thank you so much.
So I'm doing school pick, a kid pick up at the same time.
I didn't come prepared with comments today, but I just wanted to address the issue of the lowering the age to 14.
You know, in this moment and culture of repression and anti-immigrant sentiment,
You know, there are some significant concerns that are raised to really create a culture of intimidation in our schools at this time.
You know, as a former immigration practitioner, we see so many examples of cases, even in Massachusetts, where law enforcement and immigration are mingled.
Yeah.
And I just, I really, I think this is a serious issue and it does not keep us safer.
It creates a culture of intimidation in our schools for vulnerable youth.
And I'm really strongly hoping the school committee will make the right choice and keep the policy as is and keep our kids and our communities protected.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thanks.
Drive safely.
I'm going back to my school pickup, my kid pickup.
Bye.
Drive safely.
All right.
And I'm now going to Khaled Issa, and I apologize if I said your name wrong.
Oh, hi.
Hi, everyone.
Sorry, I'm going to be quick.
I wanted to question to the vote that happened during the last meeting and to the members who voted to add the second day of Rosh Hashanah.
what was the reason behind that vote?
We went from an extremely exclusive calendar last year to an old federal calendar, only for federal calendar.
And then again to slightly less exclusive calendar.
And then during the prior meetings, multiple, you mentioned that we're gonna look at the data and we're gonna decide over the school calendar.
And I thought, okay, so it seemed like the decision was made.
Let's look at the data of attendance and based on this, we'll decide on the school calendar.
However, during the last meeting, the data did not support adding the secondary of Roshanah.
The teacher's clear request was not to extend the school calendar into further days into June.
However, school committee members voted, definitely certain members, to go ahead with that proposal.
There is an obvious bias, and I wish I would ask the school committee members to show integrity in the decision-making and voting, because obviously what you claim that you're going to do, that's what you vote for.
Mr. Shemtov, Mr. Motenko, you claimed before, too, that you represent every student in our schools, which obviously, I mean, the voting last meeting does not show that.
If you walk to any of our schools, you will realize how diverse our schools are.
We have people from everywhere.
And having a very exclusive calendar, what we have right now, excluding vast majority of the students in our town.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
And are we done?
Is that everyone?
Did everyone?
OK, great.
I would like to thank everyone for showing up and sharing
your thoughts about these important things and I was listening to everybody.
So the next item on the agenda is the discussion of the calendar.
So I would like to, Avi, would you like me to bounce this to you as the chair of the calendar committee or do you want me to start it off?
Do we have the three versions of the calendar ready to put up on the screen at any point or?
I know everyone has had an opportunity to see them.
I, I, the three, what three versions are you, the three that.
The three that the FDA sent back.
I didn't, they're in your folder.
So I can read them.
I can read them.
So the, what happened was.
If we're going to, I just didn't know.
I didn't know I would leave this discussion, but I have no problem doing that.
I was just going to say, I'm just.
I'm not set up.
I just wasn't set up to share the screen.
But I think the summary real quick for where we are is last meeting, we voted two versions of a calendar to submit to the Sharon Teachers Union.
Again, just for any folks watching who aren't aware, the
agreement between the Sharon Teachers Association and this district is that if this committee passes a calendar that starts before Labor Day, or in order for us to start before Labor Day, we require an agreement with the STA on that calendar.
If the STA does not agree, or we choose to start post Labor Day, that's a different option.
So we can, in short, have a calendar either A, that starts before Labor Day, and we can agree with the STA on them,
Or we can start post Labor Day.
Last year, I think I speak for a real majority of this town that starting post Labor Day, and certainly in the way that we went about handling that calendar, created a lot of heartache.
So at this moment, the Sharon Teachers Association, which is not normally the way that the process works, but was kind enough to send us three versions of the calendars that they believe fit their membership survey information.
So we all have three versions of a calendar.
They are somewhat...
I mean, at least one version is pretty different than the other two.
They do all incorporate some days that the SDA was honest with us.
Their membership very much values like the day at the end of holiday break next year, the day before Thanksgiving, et cetera.
And so if we, my belief or my view is that tonight we should vote for
All three of those calendars and any one of them that passes with four votes from this committee, I believe my opinion is we should then send back to the STA and any calendar that this committee can pass.
If that's one, then that becomes the calendar.
If that is more than one, then the STA will vote and ratify one of those calendars and we'll move on from there.
We would then just have to vote it again.
If people don't object to voting all three of them, because again, I think this community feels very passionately and strongly and not necessarily all on the same page about these calendars.
So I think we owe it to this community to give all three of these calendars that the STA has sent to us an honest shake.
And again, if we're unable to pass any of them, then we're gonna have to be discussing different options and how we proceed.
But again, the STA took the time and the energy
to create these three versions.
Jane has looked them.
We would have to vote them just, and I say Jane, Peter also has looked at them.
We would have to, I think, vote them contingent on an administrative review or review by administration just to make sure they meet all the needs from like a half-day perspective, PD perspective, et cetera.
So that's what I'd like to do here is give all three calendars an honest fair shake to vote.
Any calendar that gets four votes, send over to the STA and move forward.
All right.
All right.
Well, that sounds all right to me.
So I will then bring forward calendar one.
Calendar one has early release days for all of the religious observance days.
And somebody had asked during the comments about why there was a half day.
And the reason that there was a half day on certain holidays was so that families could skip school without missing like a whole bunch of important information.
And that was the purpose.
It didn't have anything to do with the time of day of worship or.
anything like that.
It was really just to make it easier on families.
We do have to have 11 or 12, I forget the exact number, of the half days throughout the year.
So what we would do in calendar one is kind of schedule those early release days on days like Rosh Hashanah day one, Rosh Hashanah day two, Yom Kippur, Diwali, Eid al-Fitr, Good Friday, and Eid al-Adha.
And the vacation would include a Wednesday of Thanksgiving.
It would include a winter break that starts on December 24th and goes through January 2nd.
And it would start before Labor Day on August 27th.
So if I hear a motion, we can take, would anyone like me to repeat any of that?
Are you looking at it?
Okay.
All right.
So I will accept a motion to approve calendar one.
So I think I think I might have it set up to be able to put on the screen.
I think we have to be able to look at this, especially just for the public to be able to see it.
I know how passionate the community is about this, and I just want to make sure everybody has an option to see this.
So let me try to.
Good idea.
All right.
Jeremy, did you want to say something while Avi is doing this?
I just thought we should put it on the screen.
All right, so this is calendar 1.
Do you have the other sheet where it kind of lists everything out?
Like, the 2nd page of that?
Yeah, it's turned to the side.
Okay.
Nevermind.
But it lists everything out right here.
So again, it shows that the first day would be August 27th.
The last day, the 180th day, I should say, would be June 11th.
The 185th day would be June 18th.
And it shows what days would be off.
So this is the calendar that has no school on Indigenous Peoples Day, Veterans Day, MLK Day, and Memorial Day.
And then it has half days off.
on days like Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah day one, day two, Diwali, Eid, both Eids, Good Friday.
So this is calendar one.
Avi, I have it up, turned right way up.
Is that helpful if I share it and you can walk through it?
That'd be super helpful.
Right, so.
Let me stop sharing.
Oh, let me come back to the Zoom screen here.
So you're talking to somebody that uses Teams most of the time, but Jasper, one second.
There we go.
Thank you.
You all see my screen like that?
Mm-hmm.
It's awesome.
Okay.
So I'm not giving up the floor to you.
You can certainly go through it, but I just thought I could share it so people can see it.
Yeah, it's fine.
You're on the calendar subcommittee too.
I think the important thing here is just that everybody in the community see exactly what the version is that we're looking at.
So I guess, Julie, if you want to call for a motion or I can.
One thing to make clear, they don't list it, but just that Wednesday before Thanksgiving and January 2nd are no school days on that as well.
Right.
Shawna, did you want to say something?
Yes, please.
Is it possible to see the actual calendar?
I'm just very visual and I think it's just helpful.
My version has the normal way.
Alan's has that one sideways.
It's in the drive, Sean.
No, no, no.
I know.
I just think it's visually visual appeal.
Hold on.
I can do this, Sean.
Hold on one second.
Sorry.
No, not a problem.
Oh, look at that, Alan.
You're so good.
Of all those yellow days is a lot.
Jeremy?
Yeah, I agree with Shana.
It seems very disruptive.
It's a lot of half days or working parents, especially who have to work, go into an office.
Well, we do have 11 or 12 half days, usually for professional development and parent-teacher conferences.
So
we're not really adding net days.
We're just sort of moving them.
I count 15 half days on this calendar.
Okay.
Well, I think there's a note.
Okay.
Well, I tend to agree.
You know, I tend to agree with both Sean and Jeremy in this case.
So again, I guess if somebody would like to make a motion, I would entertain a motion to approve calendar one.
Can I ask a question?
I apologize, I apologize.
Would the other members be amenable to reviewing all three calendars first and then voting on each calendar separately as opposed to voting on one at a time without the community seeing all three?
Sure, the only thing that I would just say, and I don't mean to be snarky when I say this,
The voting purpose of this meeting is the board, the seven members for whom this is a business meeting.
I trust and want to hope that all of us have reviewed these calendars.
So to me, to review all three and then vote them feels a little redundant, but I'm comfortable doing that if that's what people would prefer.
Alan, do you want us to do that?
No, I mean, I think if I'm in the minority on that and there's agreement, we should vote one at a time.
I have no problem with that.
Okay.
Sean, you had something?
Yeah, I think, Alan, I appreciate your sentiment.
I think that we've, I think we've all seen that and I think we can move ahead with the vote.
Okay, so again, I'll entertain a motion to approve calendar one.
All right, hearing no, did somebody make a motion?
Sean, are you making a motion?
No, all right.
Hearing no motion,
we can move to calendar two.
Alan, can you scroll?
Do this first.
All right, so calendar two,
is the calendar that looks the most like this school year that we have now.
So this calendar does have a day off on Rosh Hashanah Day 1.
It has a day off on Yom Kippur.
It has a day off on Indigenous Peoples Day, on Veterans Day, on Thanksgiving.
It includes, sorry, so on Thanksgiving, it's including the Wednesday.
No, I apologize.
This is the one.
Oh, yes, it does.
Yep, it does include the Wednesday.
It includes January 2nd at the end of holiday break.
It includes MLK Day.
If I didn't say Good Friday already, I think I did, but it includes Good Friday.
Then it includes Memorial Day.
It does have, I count, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10.
I count 11 half days on this calendar, so four less half days on this calendar.
But again, that's because there are three more holidays with full days off on this calendar.
Jeremy?
Just double check, 11's the number of half days that we have to have anyways?
Or is that the rule?
I don't know if there's a set rule.
Peter, how many half days do we need, or Dr. Rotella, how many half days do we need for
PD, is this the minimum possible half days, 11?
Yeah, I think with the combination of PD, but also some of them are just strictly conference days.
Yes, that's the number.
Okay, 11.
All right.
Julie?
I was going to say that I think whatever motion we pass, we could just say subject to making sure the administration has the right number of days.
Yeah, I said at the beginning of the discussion that we're going to have to be continued.
Yep.
Alan?
I would like to just talk for a minute, if I can, Avi, about this particular calendar.
You know, I've come to realize that I put us here to some extent by insisting that we try to put back on the table Western China Day 2.
And I did that because I said very clearly and unambiguously during the campaign that I thought we would become, that we don't become a more diverse, inclusive, and pluralistic community
by taking away Rosh Hashanah Day 2, taking away any holiday that's been on our books and observed by our community for a long time.
I think especially when folks in our community have grown to move here and to rely on the holidays that are here.
At the same time, I certainly support trying to recognize as many holidays as practical and plausible.
And I've said that from the beginning.
And so to the extent that my vote last week may have confused anybody, that's why I made the vote
that I made.
We're at a point right now where the Sharon Teachers Association sort of has us over a barrel.
They get to control, as Sue indicated before, at this point, whether we start before Labor Day or after Labor Day.
And while the calendar that we're looking at right now isn't what I would necessarily consider to be perfect, I think it is critical that we start for the district, start before Labor Day.
And I think it's critical as well that the district
we not put off a vote on this issue any longer.
All of the calendars before us generally don't address the data that was obtained both in the parent survey or in the absence data that was gained from this year.
And I realize some of that data can be judged both ways, but in general, none of these calendars really adhere to that data.
Not the least of which is that
most of these calendars don't consider the fact that there are certain holidays.
Uh, we're not going to simply be able to operate the schools.
And so by very definition, we're going to have to acknowledge, uh, some of our holidays.
It was disappointing to me that the STA, uh, did not support a full bill for the second day of Rosh Hashanah because they didn't sit.
They said that the data didn't support that.
But then with this calendar that we're looking at, they added holidays that the data also didn't support.
So I feel as though that wasn't really intellectually, uh,
straightforward.
Having said that, I'm going to vote for this calendar because I think of the options that we are presented at this time, this is the best one for our district.
Thank you.
Does anybody else have anything they want to say?
Jeremy?
I'm looking at calendar three.
I know we're doing one at a time.
There are only eight half days on that one and 11 on this one.
So I'm confused, Batello, when you said that we need 11 half-days, why there's eight on the next one.
Is that going to be an operational issue?
I'm not in charge here, but I would say it's a little strange to call a superintendent of public schools Batello.
I think Dr. Batello might be more appropriate.
Thank you for correcting me, Javi.
But the numbers are mismatching.
Why are there eight and one?
So Jeremy, just for clarification purposes,
These are the calendars sent to us by the Sharon Teachers Association.
We will have to vote them contingent on administration reviewing them and making sure they have all the district's needs.
So I think in fairness, that would be a question for the SCA.
They put eight half days on one and 11 on another and 15 on one.
That's why I asked Dr. Othello here in public what the number was and he's comfortable saying that that's around 11.
I would entertain a motion on the calendar too.
Okay.
Can I say something about this calendar?
Okay.
Um, I did a lot of the analysis for the calendars last year and I, um,
studied all the data that we collect.
And I know that everyone feels that it was a flawed survey, but I still think there's some directional information.
The purpose of this was to, the purpose of giving days off for holidays was not to honor a holiday or disrespect someone by not honoring the holiday.
The purpose was based on attendance.
And
In that survey, it showed that there was going to be a lack of attendance on Rosh Hashanah day one, Yom Kippur, and a significant chunk but less for Rosh Hashanah day two.
And that number was about the same as for Good Friday and Diwali.
The next one down was Chinese New Year, and the next one down was Eid al-Fitr.
We felt at the time that if we could make those half days, then it would make families feel better about skipping those days.
We also could acknowledge the lack of attendance on some of those holidays, some of which is because we will not have students in school, others because
we were informed by the teachers last year that they would be missing Good Friday.
I think probably because their kids are in districts where Good Friday is off.
So I think that this is a good mix of practical and attendance-based, which is what we should always be focusing on, and adding a little bit of honor to other people in town.
So I would move this motion.
I see two hands up before I call for a second.
Jeremy?
Sorry, I didn't put it down.
But I mean, it seems like a lot of towns near us only have eight or nine half days.
So maybe we'd run things differently here.
But this does seem like a high number of half days.
Dr. Botello, is it possible to get by with eight or nine half days?
I know our half days are based on certain contractual situations and the way we run PD and whatnot.
So I don't have a way to know that answer.
I mean, I need to analyze it, but I think typically the combination we have around...
11.
That's not necessarily that many for every school.
So I need to look at that.
Jeremy, I've been reliably informed that pre-COVID, there were always 11 half days.
And like lately, we've had 11 or 12.
So I think that's because we actually do provide good
professional development for our teachers, which I know is an issue you were concerned about.
I mean, we spend a lot less than other districts on it on a per teacher basis.
I'm not going to debate the metrics.
I just moved the motion.
I don't know if anyone wants to second it.
Well, I see.
Let's just take Adam's question and then we can see if there's a second.
Adam.
Thanks, Javi.
I just want to clarify
for the motion and for the calendars we're voting, I know that there's kind of the handwritten notes kind of on each where, like, both here we note they're missing kind of early release, but on the calendar, and they were missing an early release for PD.
And then actually, if you scroll up and rotate, you'd see, like, we're missing a different maybe early release.
So I just want to make sure we know which one is, like, which days we're voting up.
I can explain that if it's helpful.
Sure.
Thank you, Jane.
Sorry.
That was just a quick comparison.
These were the calendars that the STA sent back to us.
And I think the goal would have been that, for example, on calendar one, that the calendar version, the picture version of the calendar aligned with the spreadsheet that explained it.
but that wasn't the case.
So that's what my notes are about so that you can understand what's not aligned.
I think my recommendation would be, for example, on all three of them, they neglected to include a PD that is typically on our calendars in January.
And it was on all of the versions that we sent to them,
but it wasn't on any of the versions that they sent back to us, which is why you'll see at the bottom of all my calendars, I say, you know, missing, missing 1.15 early release PD.
On this version of the calendar, they were missing the, on this calendar, you don't see it highlighted 5.27 early release EID, but I think it's in their spreadsheet.
So that's, I'm just trying to-
I was just trying to compare.
Thank you, Jan.
That makes complete sense.
And that was my understanding as well.
I just, I wanted to clarify for the committee because I don't exactly understand, like if we vote on this calendar, which of those dates are included or are not included in the vote.
So I'll make a friendly amendment, Julie.
I would ask that we vote this calendar contingent
on both administration's review in order to make sure that this calendar meets the district's needs, but also with the directive from this committee that we aim without reducing the half days to recognize holidays, to have as few half days as the district can possibly have.
I share both Shauna and Jeremy's concerns.
I think the community's concerns that we have too many half days and half days are I think often an overlooked
um burden on parents as somebody mentioned during public comment tonight for some folks it requires a full day off in order for them to be able to get their kids halfway through the day i think this committee hopefully recognizes that i believe we do so that would my friendly memo would just be to act with a directive that in that review administration look to reduce the half days to the lowest number that they can possibly get by with based on our contract and pd needs um i agree and accept your friendly amendment
And I'll second that motion.
All right, Adam.
Yes.
Julie.
Yes.
Jeremy.
No.
Dan.
Yes.
Shawna.
No.
I called Alan.
I didn't hear you, sorry, yes.
And I am a yes.
Motion carries 5-2.
calendar two is passed.
Now on to calendar three.
So calendar three, I believe is the calendar that they refer to as essentially an adjusted federal only calendar.
It does again have
The day before Thanksgiving off, it has the day at the end of holiday break off.
But other than that, it sticks to a federal-only calendar, recognizing only Indigenous Peoples Day, Veterans Day, MLK Day, and Memorial Day.
The early release days are, as Jeremy pointed out, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, it looks like nine.
So again, that's a lower number.
Obviously, still, we need a motion that would include a review of that, but same directive.
We have no reason to add more if we don't need them.
Go ahead, Shauna.
I was going to move it forward.
Okay, I would entertain a motion unless there's discussion to be had.
I'd like to make a motion to move the federal holiday calendar forward, please.
We have a second?
Second.
All right.
Shawna?
Yes.
Jeremy?
Yes.
Julie?
No.
Dan?
No.
Adam?
No.
Allen?
No.
And I'm a no.
Motion is defeated.
Two yes, five no.
All right.
We have one calendar that we have passed.
and we will send that back to the STA for official approval.
Done with the calendar for now.
Thank you, Avi.
Thank you very much.
Okay, so the next item on the agenda is the town meeting warrant article.
So the context is that there was some legislation approved
in Massachusetts, they approved a bill that will permit cities and towns in the Commonwealth to install automated traffic enforcement cameras on school buses.
And this bill would allow districts to decide whether to install those camera systems that take pictures and videos of vehicles that may be in violation of laws that prohibit passing a stopped bus or whatever.
Local police departments would review the footage and determine whether fines should be issued and buses with automated cameras would be marked.
The districts that use the systems would be required to file annual reports to the state.
They cannot allow the vendors to use data for any other purpose.
So this is a motion that is supported by the MASC and
we have been asked to discuss this.
And if we are interested in allowing the town to do this, it doesn't mean we are going to do this, but leaving the option open, it has to be sent to town meetings.
So that's why we have to discuss it right now.
And we would simply pass a motion that says, I had it right here.
It would simply be a warrant from the school committee saying acceptance of legislation to see if the town will vote to accept it.
So is there any debate on the topic?
Adam, I think I talked, I think I included everything, right?
Yes, I think so.
Right.
Just to make sure everyone is on the same page in order to enable if we wanted to allow law enforcement to issue citations and come in compliance with this new law.
then we need to have this warrant approved at town meeting.
So we talked to Fred.
Fred said, because the warrant kind of articles are currently being considered, he said it's not too late.
He can kind of bring this for inclusion if we are so inclined and ask them to include it in the warrant.
If we don't at this point,
What that would mean is we just can take no action kind of pursuant to this law until next year at next town meeting if we chose to include the Warren article at that point.
So we are trying to see if there is interest in enabling that discussion and vote at town meetings.
Just to clarify, to be crystal clear, this would not be us discussing whether to put this technology on buses.
It's just allowing us if we wanted to.
And of course, if we ever did, or if we had the funds available to do that, would we do it?
There would obviously be a discussion about that in the future.
Dan?
Thanks.
Who has the final decision in terms of whether to actually implement this and put cameras on school buses and start mailing fines to people?
Assuming this goes on the warrant, it passes the town meeting requirements.
Who has that final decision about whether to actually do that or not?
Is it the town would need to vote it again specifically?
Is it the police department gets to decide?
Is it that we have the decision?
Does everybody need to agree?
Could somebody just walk me through it?
My understanding from reading this is that it would be the school committees that would be making the final decision.
So we'd have another opportunity to...
Yes, yes, yes, yes, we would, you know, should it come up at some point in the future.
Yes, we would have definitely have a discussion.
Alan.
I was just going to move that we decide to advance this issue to town meeting to keep open the option of adopting this as a future policy for the safety of our children in the district.
Okay, that was a motion.
Is there a second?
A second?
Second.
Wow.
Okay.
Jeremy?
Yes.
Shauna?
Shauna, are you there?
I'll come back.
Dan?
Yes.
Oh, Adam, did you want to say something?
I just want to ask if you had the language that could either be kind of shown on screen or to make sure we know in the motion what the Warren article should entail.
Okay.
Let me do that.
Can you see this?
To see if the town will to vote to accept one, the provisions of MGL and
to the extent that acceptance is necessary, the provisions of MGL, and as added by chapter, our law firm did this for us.
To permit the installation, operation, and maintenance of school bus violation detected, monitoring systems on school buses or take any action related thereto.
That would be like the warrant.
we can always change it.
Thank you.
I thought it'd just be helpful to show and make sure everyone could see until we have it recorded exactly what the Warren article would look like.
Right.
So all we'd be doing is accepting the law that has already been passed.
So should I stop the share or are you still reading it?
Stop it?
Okay.
Okay, good.
Any discussion?
Okay.
So the motion has been moved.
It's been seconded and we are now voting on whether to send this warrant to the town meeting.
Jeremy.
Sorry.
Yes.
Shauna.
Are you here?
Oh, Shauna dropped off.
That's right.
She had to go.
Dan.
Yes.
Alan.
Yes.
Adam.
Yes.
Avi.
Yes.
And I'm a yes.
Thank you very much.
We will have this sent to Fred.
The next item on the agenda is
the policy subcommittee, and I'm going to hand it over to Dan.
Thank you.
Would it be possible to pull up the presentation and advance the slides for me?
That worked really well last time.
Great.
Thanks so much.
Hi, everyone.
We have a policy update for you tonight.
We really appreciate the time on the agenda, and we'll try to move through everything as quickly as we can.
These are a couple of slides from last time.
Their background about our process.
The purpose of subcommittee is to research policies, develop recommendations about them, and bring recommendations to the full school committee.
So that's what we're doing tonight.
Some things we just want you to know about how our subcommittee operates before you review and vote on these policies is that we accept good ideas from anywhere.
Some of these proposals you'll see tonight came from our administration.
Some of them came from the public.
Some of them came from our legal counsel.
And whatever the source of them is, we go out and try to consult key stakeholders, identify who those are, and incorporate any input they have for all the recommendations we make.
And often we will do everything we can to try to implement any feedback we receive.
The MASC, or Massachusetts Association of School Committees, or however you want to say it, does a lot of work for us.
We are a member district.
We pay to belong by preparing model policies.
And these are what many districts across Massachusetts use.
So they develop them with their legal team and study of policies and people who are experienced in education and policy matters, and they come up with a version that they recommend districts adopt.
So we always begin by reviewing what MASC did first in terms of developing a model policy, if there is one.
Our superintendent and staff review all proposals.
We make sure that they agree with what we're bringing to the table.
For legal matters, we have counsel review.
There's no custom language from policy subcommittee in any of our proposals tonight.
You will not see anything that I or others on the subcommittee wrote.
We didn't take the pen.
We want you to know that.
Everything you'll see tonight comes directly from a trusted source.
It could be from the mask model policy.
It could be the State Department of Education.
It could be our legal counsel, or it could be language from an existing policy that we reviewed and we feel is working really well, and we don't want to change it.
We want to keep it.
So everything comes from one of those sources.
Let's see.
Yeah, next slide.
Thank you.
We began the year with an extraordinarily ambitious goal, I think, which was to do a zero-based review of all of our policies in the handbook and try to fix our entire handbook and bring it up to date.
on track to meet that goal we thank everyone on school committee for your important part in this process reviewing these policies with us asking questions voting on them so just as a reminder last december we approved the first large batch of proposals consistent with that goal these fixed many of the errors that were in our handbook they relocated reference materials of our administrative staff have been a wonderful help to us in getting all that done uh we up
We updated a large batch of proposals that we flagged that are now accurate and back in effect and we can actually use again.
So all of this, I think, has already had a huge impact on our policies and our handbook and how credible it is.
So let's just give ourselves a little pat on the back.
Tonight, we have the second and likely final batch of these types of proposals.
So if we get through this batch together, review them, and ultimately vote to adopt some or all of them, we'll have fixed all the policies that we flagged for update as part of that zero-based review.
So I think that would be quite an accomplishment.
So that's what we're here to do tonight.
And we're not voting on any policies tonight.
This is just a first read only.
So we would allow weeks to go by for us to think about them and study them and receive even additional feedback.
And then we would vote on them sometime in the future.
All right, let's get into it.
So our first proposals tonight are food service policies, EF and EFC.
So a lot has changed in food services over the past five years, you might have noticed.
We went through COVID, state laws changed, fundings changed, and there's a new state universal lunch program that we participate in.
So as you would expect over a period like that, our food service policies, EF and EFC, have become really out of date.
uh they also kind of duplicate each other in their scope when you read them so you see the full policies actually right here uh so some specific problems are that ef right there on the bottom refers to programs that don't exist anymore type a lunches and things i researched them we use different terms now there's different programs uh that policy ef does not have a mask model policy which can be a red flag of sorts
EFC at the top does have a mask model policy, but this isn't updated to the latest mask model policy, which describes those new state programs like universal lunches.
So we consulted with our food services staff.
They're one of our main stakeholders for these policies, and they're recommending that we rescind that policy on the bottom EF that
is out of date, doesn't have a mask model policy, kind of duplicates the same scope as EFC and update EFC to the newest mask policy to reflect all these changes.
So those aren't actually edits you see on the right per se, at least not that we implemented.
Certain mask model policies require tailoring to your specific school district.
based on which programs you participate in.
So we'll see some of those tonight.
So these edits you see on the right are what food services did to tailor the policy so that it's accurate for Sharon.
Is there any discussion?
We'll pause after every single one of these proposals and give people an opportunity to speak if they have any questions or comments.
It seems pretty straightforward.
Okay, thank you.
Next slide.
So
ADF is our wellness policy.
Wellness covers nutrition and physical education.
State audit flagged ADF for being out of date.
So when you have a policy that says you're doing something and you're not actually doing it, this is pretty common in the policy world, an audit will note that and they'll recommend that you update the policy or start doing what you say you should be doing.
So that's one of many reasons to have up-to-date policies.
When you read our existing wellness policy ADF, you notice right away, I guess it's not up on the screen right now, but you can look it up.
It says that there's a district wellness committee and it says all these things we're supposed to be doing, meeting regularly, issuing reports every year, doing this, doing that.
It also says that every building in our district should actually have its own wellness committee.
That's not something we're currently doing.
I'm not ashamed to admit it's not something other towns do.
That's a lot of administrative burden, as you could expect, writing all these reports, all these committees.
So the mask model policy does not recommend any of that.
So it's just a lot of requirements we're placing on ourselves that we're not actually doing, maybe because it's not feasible, really.
So updating to the mask model policy in this instance would resolve all these conflicts.
It's a simpler policy.
You can see it right there, although it is longer and it continues a little bit.
You can take a look at the model policy in full if you like, but it's kind of more along these lines.
And we would still have a district-wide wellness committee, which is in the model policy.
School committee would have a representative on it, but it would only meet as necessary.
And it wouldn't be obligated to publish all those reports.
And those school building specific extra wellness committees are not part of the mass model policy.
At the request of our food services staff, we had them review this recommendation as well.
We would keep a brief note about allergies awareness.
You see that right there on the bottom left.
That is from our existing policy.
And food services takes allergies very seriously, as they should.
So they have asked that we just retain that one piece of the existing policy when we update to the mask policy.
So we're recommending that we do that.
Dan?
Would you take out the line that says the wellness committee recognizes like you would reword that to not to refer back to the wellness committee?
We do have a wellness committee now.
They recommend it at some point.
I presumably future wellness committees might as well.
But, you know, that's that's up for discussion.
I'm happy to recommend removing it or we could just leave it as it is.
But that was the note they asked us to just keep.
Is there a preference or any other discussion?
So over here on the right, ADF, this is the MASC or?
Yes.
Okay.
Oh, and one additional, there's a blank space in there.
You see where it says wellness program coordinator title.
That's where many districts just fill in superintendent or designate.
This just recognizes the superintendent is the administrative head of many of these kinds of programs and they can delegate staff to do things as appropriate.
So that's the recommendation there.
Okay, if there's no further discussion, next slide, please.
HB is our policy on negotiations.
It says we need to bargain in good faith.
We're recommending to eliminate that.
No, I'm just kidding.
We're not recommending that.
We're keeping that provision, but HB is out of date.
Specifically, it contains a requirement you see there underlined on the left that actually our select board
should vote on school committee negotiations.
Obviously, that hasn't been our practice.
I don't think it's a common practice.
It originated somewhere.
But we flagged this.
On the advice of the administration, we had legal counsel review it.
It's not required by town bylaws for select board to vote on our negotiations.
And arguably, from what counsel describes, it's contrary to what our role was supposed to be.
So counsel is recommending to update to the mask model policy that you see on the right.
And to just add a legal citation, you see there in green, to direct people to the relevant portion of the state law, which is Chapter 150.
But updating to the MAS model policy would resolve that outdated requirement.
Is there any discussion?
That's straightforward.
Policy IA is an odd one.
It's called instructional goals.
It doesn't have a mask model policy associated with it.
It does, when you read it, seem to be more descriptive.
It doesn't really have a clear policy purpose, at least not the way I
I would say that.
So we do have another policy that called policy IGA, which covers curriculum development.
And that policy IGA does follow a mask model policy.
It's more descriptive about roles and how curriculum should be developed.
And we're recommending to not make any change to that.
We reviewed this policy IA with the administration, and we all came to the same conclusion and agreed it was probably unnecessary and kind of duplicates that same space as IGA, but not as effectively.
So our recommendation is to just rescind this policy and just use IGA.
Is there any discussion?
Okay.
Next, please.
Okay.
This policy, JIH, is our questioning and searches policy.
So this deals with matters of law enforcement and what student rights are during things like property searches, what the protocols our schools need to follow when law enforcement needs to question a student.
So like many of the other policies tonight, it's out of date.
And we're recommending we update it.
Now, given the gravity of this subject matter, everyone here recognizes the importance of taking our time with this one, I think, getting it right.
So my presentation of this policy will be a little longer than those other ones we just rushed through.
So please be patient with me.
I had the benefit because I was tasked with doing it with working directly with our excellent legal counsel in this instance.
I just want every...
buddy on the school committee, my colleagues, and also the members of the public to have the same benefit of the background and the advice we've been getting from legal counsel that I've had in making this recommendation.
So the gravity of the subject is why we worked with administration and we both
heavily relied on our legal counsel on this policy.
We wanted to be very careful with it.
And the version that you will see on the next slide in a minute is what counsel drafted for us and is what we're recommending for us to adopt.
So just some background information from this slide.
Council's recommendations reflect the latest case law in Massachusetts on questioning and searches, and they describe the appropriate roles of our school and law enforcement.
They also align the policy with our latest memorandum of understanding MOU that we have with Sharon's Police Department.
We'll have a discussion in a minute.
Just be patient for a second.
I want to get to any questions anyone has.
So
So that MOU with the police department is based on a state template agreement that we have and many other districts have adopted.
So I'd recommend personally that we put that MOU somewhere on the public website if we can, but I would like to just follow up with the administration after the call and explore what the best way to do that might be if everyone agrees.
So this last paragraph here is a list of the stakeholders we consulted before bringing counsel's recommendation.
We consulted our police chief, the school resource officer, some school staff, our CPAC, our Special Education Parent Advisory Council, and forwarded their input to legal counsel.
One thing I do want to specifically note is because some of the feedback came within just the past 48 hours, our superintendent hasn't had the full opportunity that we always want him to have
to review and comment.
So he has seen the proposal.
He may have additional feedback.
So I just wanted to note that we did check with Dr. Botehlo before presenting this one specific policy tonight and check that he was okay with bringing it just for an initial read and discussion.
But all of the feedback we received today, we forwarded to council and council has incorporated it into their recommendation we're bringing tonight, which we'll review now.
Next slide, please.
So the text you see in black here is our existing policy, JIH.
The red line edits are what council had originally prepared.
And then based on all that good stakeholder feedback we received, we took that and asked council to incorporate all of it to make it as protective as policy and speak to some of those issues our stakeholders raised.
Some things to quickly note, Council updated the section on searches at the beginning to mention other kinds of personal property, like back-to-backs, searches of persons, importantly.
And in several places, it refers to the latest legal standards governing what our schools are and aren't allowed to do.
The second paragraph is broadening protections of constitutional rights of students, not just limited to policy or protection from coercion, but all applicable constitutional rights.
The section on questioning now refers to school and law enforcement officials, recognizing that questioning by school officials can sometimes have judicial ramifications as well.
And we want to recognize that we should be protecting student rights in those situations too, not just where law enforcement is strictly involved.
So the new policy would reference our current MOU with the police department based on that state template.
The current policy doesn't do that.
Many important protocols for how police are allowed to interact with students are contained in that MOU.
So those would all be incorporated.
A new protection on questioning.
Questioning by school officials shall not occur on behalf of law enforcement until the schools have attempted to contact the parent or guardian.
That was not a protection in our current policy.
So last two provisions here at the bottom.
I expect this is probably what we'll be discussing the most tonight.
So some of the correspondence we received noted correctly that our existing policy doesn't have provisions that refer to 14-year-old students, and why does it then change that from 18 years old to 14 years old in that place?
So that's a good question, and it warrants some explanation.
This portion of the document is mirroring the latest case law in Massachusetts.
So 14 and 18 are when extra protections for juveniles kick in.
And the policy is describing what those protections are.
And we're going to drill down on what that means in a moment.
So we agree with the stakeholders who wrote in that we shouldn't only be following the minimum of what the law requires.
And we're not doing that in our recommendation.
So you see in every part of this policy, council has inserted additional language and additional protections on top of what the law requires in terms of student rights.
So there's a new requirement you see here for Miranda rights.
There's a new provision about knowing waiver.
And based on input from our special education council, we asked council to include important protections for students who might have a lower cognitive or emotional age, excuse me,
disabilities, other kinds of impairments that could affect knowing waiver.
And we're directing the schools to share information with law enforcement in such circumstances as appropriate.
None of that was in our existing policy.
We also asked council to strengthen the original language so that the schools are required to contact parents and provide them with an opportunity to be present for any questioning, including students over 18, which our original policy did not do.
So the recommendation would, in all circumstances, require parents to be given an opportunity to be present during questioning.
So during the stakeholder feedback and some of the comments today, we got an important question, which is why don't we just keep this hard prohibition on questioning by law enforcement under any circumstances if apparent isn't present?
So the answer is when council reviewed our current policy, there were many areas that council identified where the policy needed to be strengthened in regard to students' rights.
So most of what you see here is council doing that, strengthening student rights.
In regard to that one provision, council flagged it as being so overbroad in its current form that it risked interfering with law enforcement and exposing the district to risk.
There are emergency situations.
There are situations where parents simply can't be present, but the law recognizes it's appropriate under the circumstances for the law, excuse me, our school resource officer to speak with students, perhaps even for their own protection.
I appreciate the perspectives everybody mentioned tonight, but I want to just be clear.
There are no other school districts in the state of Massachusetts that have a policy like that, possibly because it's so overbroad.
I wasn't able to find any.
And in any matter of law enforcement, you know, there's this tension.
This is just me speaking off the cuff right now between rights and public safety.
That's what all the case law in this tries to strike a balance between.
So, you know, this is not, from my perspective, solely an exercise in maximizing student rights.
It can't be.
It has to recognize appropriate roles.
And, you know, I personally think we should strengthen student rights to up to that maximum of the line of
where we are starting to risk encroaching into law enforcement and risking public safety because student rights are so important.
But there is a line.
We could do all sorts of things in Sharon to maximize student rights at the expense of everything else.
Just having a school resource officer in our schools.
Many parents are against that.
Many parents think
There shouldn't be police in our schools, period.
Many parents think we shouldn't allow police in our schools ever without a warrant.
You know, I'm not I'm not criticizing those parents.
Those are valid perspectives.
But we've gone a different direction because I think it's safe to say we believe school resource officers do.
serve an important public safety role and they have a role in our school so um this is what council we ask council to do in terms of maximizing student rights but you know this is what council is advising um is the maximum where if we went any further beyond it they aren't comfortable because we'd start interfering with the role of law enforcement uh i'll just wrap up on the next slide and then we'll get the discussion
So what do most other school districts in Massachusetts use?
Most school districts, as in most cases, use the mass model policy.
It was last updated in 2021.
Council's updates are building on that mass model policy, JIH, referencing those additional rights we just saw that council added in.
In this case, mass model policy, we all agreed, is probably not as protective as Sharon wants to be, but it is what most school districts follow.
So, but, you know, in terms of the feedback we've received, we take it very seriously.
We appreciate it.
We always want to incorporate feedback as much as we can.
So we've included those additional protections about always giving parents the opportunity to be present, regardless of student age.
protections for students who might have disabilities or other impairments.
And I just want to emphasize this.
If we were to go this direction with these updates, Sharon's version of this policy would be the most up to date and, in my opinion, the most protective of students' rights in any school district in Massachusetts that I've seen, bar none.
And I wouldn't have it any other way.
I wouldn't bring a recommendation that I didn't feel that was the case.
So that was a lot.
Thank you for bearing with me.
I know people have questions.
Let's get to the discussion.
Do you want to call on someone, Julie?
I didn't know if you were okay.
Yeah, Peter, did you want to jump in?
Yeah, yeah.
First of all, I want to thank Dan for all the work that he's doing on these policies and for the initial read.
I did talk to him a little bit.
I do support just having this initial conversation, but I do want to make clear that currently I'm not comfortable with
the policy as written.
I haven't had an opportunity to speak directly to counsel to better understand their rationale, but I, you know, though we certainly have great respect for our collaboration with law enforcement, and we certainly want to make sure
that a policy does not get in the way of those extreme circumstances that might occur.
I currently have some issues with the policy and want to kind of speak to them more and really dive into it.
So I appreciate us not having any vote tonight and really having some time.
In most cases, I think going through these policies quickly, they're pretty straightforward and revising them is great.
But a policy like this, I really think we need to scrutinize to the nth degree to make sure that kids and parents' rights are protected.
Avi.
Yeah.
Thank you, Dan, for your hard work here and the Policy Subcommittee.
for your hard work here.
I have a couple of different layers that I want to touch on.
So first, I want to say I'm uncomfortable with and I'd like to see a little bit of change in the process here.
So two things.
One, the reason that a policy subcommittee meeting has to take place
And then, you know, recommendation has to come from the policy subcommittee to this table is because that is really the right of the policy subcommittee.
A subcommittee that is created by this committee and then folks are appointed to.
So I do just want to say, I don't believe it's appropriate for feedback
to be taken even if it is from the public and from the community in between the policy subcommittee meeting and the larger meeting.
I think it's appropriate to present that feedback and say, here's feedback I've heard, et cetera.
But any edits that are made between the time of the policy subcommittee meeting and the meeting are unauthorized edits.
They're not made by the policy subcommittee.
and they're not made by the larger community.
And so for me, I just want to highlight that I'd like to see that cleaned up.
A second part of the process that I just want to stress I'd like to see change is
In cases where exorbitant, or let me be clear maybe, in cases where more than just a very quick question needs to be asked to counsel, it's my view, and I guess I'd be open to what the larger committee, how the larger committee feels, but it's my view, and I have sat on policy subcommittee multiple years, it's my view that
it should come to the table, the appetite of whether or not a change should be made should be indicated, and then council could be used to this amount.
In my role as vice chair, I speak to council occasionally about different issues, and in a conversation I was having to have with council the other day, I actually asked very quickly about how this policy came to be, and again,
to be clear this is something that the policy subcommittee decided to take up and then involved council so it is important for people to understand this is not something that occasionally it does happen that council reaches out to us as a committee uh to our chair and says here's a you know an issue that the district's going to have to get ahead of and here's something that has to happen also there are times where administration has an issue they're talking to council council advises them to go to the policy subcommittee or to the chair in this case this is a case of
The policy subcommittee being interested in making a change to a policy, perhaps warranted, but without asking the larger committee first and then going and using a fairly good amount of time on legal advice, which is expensive, to look at things that in the end, this committee may not have an appetite to entertain.
For me, that's wasteful.
But now getting to my issues with the actual change.
For me, I share Dan's feelings that it is worth going extremely far to protect students' rights.
A couple of years ago, when I was on policy subcommittee, we took up a discussion at the request of our law enforcement and our administration about the video feeds that are in our buildings.
So Sharon Police Department felt they needed access to those feeds.
We together worked together, the policy subcommittee, multiple members of the administration, the chief of police at the time, to craft a policy that gave Sharon Police Department access in emergency situations to our live video feeds and our recorded video feed, because it was explained in a very collaborative conversation that our police might need to see what happened five minutes ago, for example, in certain situations.
but that requires administration's permission to access recorded video because the policy subcommittee at the time and the larger committee at the time felt it was very important to protect students' rights and the rights of parents to protect their students when they're in our buildings.
For me, I would still lean
on that in regards to questioning.
For every scenario that could be looked at where a police officer may need to ask a question urgently of a child, I think there's an equal risk at that moment that the child may say something that a lawyer or a parent would advise them against saying in that way that could come back to be a very serious issue for that child.
And I also look at the fact that we're talking about law enforcement agencies, not simply Sharon Police Department.
And so when we create a policy that grants any amount of access to our minor children in our buildings to law enforcement, I think we open up some very serious doors for different law enforcement agencies that may or may not find themselves in our buildings and questioning our minor children.
To me, if you're going to go through the process, because let's be clear, you know, the language as it's being proposed does require that police officer to attempt or that law enforcement agency to attempt to reach the parent.
So when we're talking about an emergency situation, just as Dan had mentioned somewhere on social media that a possible overdose in a bathroom, et cetera, well, our policy does require an attempt to speak to the parent.
So if we feel like there needs to be something in here about emergency situations requiring no attempt, then that's one conversation.
But I do think that as long as we're requiring an attempt, we should require
a successful attempt.
And I think parents should either choose to waive their right to be there with their child, if that's their decision, or should be present.
I don't feel comfortable in any way creating a policy that gives the rights of law enforcement in our buildings
And again, if police officers feel or a law enforcement agency feels that their law trumps our policies, that's something that we'll have to hash out.
But so long as the policy exists, I believe that we should err on the side of protecting the civil liberties of the people that elect us and of the children that we protect.
Thanks, Avi.
We have Jeremy next on the stand.
You wanted to say something?
No, you're good.
Okay.
Oh, I was going to wait.
Okay.
Wait, wait till the end.
Okay, cool.
Yeah.
Okay.
Jeremy, your go.
I was just thinking about it.
And you know, if a 16 year old is driving and pulled over, I imagine that a cop can ask them questions.
So I was just wondering what, what the rules are outside of schools just for additional context on I'm not a lawyer.
judge um on on police officers asking questions of minors and what do they have to do with contacting parents or reaching out just so i can understand like how different a school environment would be because
Yeah, I can just narrowly respond to that question just because I've had the benefit of discussing this with counsel and research.
So you're correct, Jeremy.
So the latest case law is what are...
what council's recommendation would describe, which is that for students below 14, there is a parent required for them to interrogate.
Between 14 and 18, the students, the juvenile does have, the police do have a right to question them if they've given knowing waiver.
So I would agree that we should be more protective than that.
And I believe this policy is orders of magnitude more protective than what that minimum law requires.
But that is what kind of the floor of the law sets is.
Great.
Alan.
So two things.
One, I want to say that Dan's done a yeoman's job trying to gather all these policies together.
From my perspective as a member of the Policy Subcommittee,
You know, it was very clear that this is the kind of thing that ultimately has to be addressed at this table, right?
We weren't going to solve this or make a final decision with a policy subcommittee.
Jeremy did ask the question that I was going to ask because it did occur to me that we have students out driving cars at 16 and 17, and I don't know to what degree parents are required to be there.
And I think Dan, while I hear the answer to your question, I would like in the next week or two, maybe to get some additional clarification.
just exactly on what happens to students of 16 and 17 years old who get pulled over.
Because I think that, you know, the concern about not wanting to, um, subject students to, to questioning when they're really not intellectually or, or developmentally prepared to do so as a legitimate concern.
I don't think it is at 14.
Um, but I think if we give, if we give keys to the car to someone, a student who can go out and use that car for, for, uh,
both enjoyment and at great risk to others bodily safety.
I think we should not necessarily unreasonable to be have our school policies cognizant and in line with that.
But I'm not aware what that is either.
And I'm not any more of a lawyer than Jeremy is.
So we'd like to see that addressed.
I will say if that is in some way squishy, that my inclination would be to stick with 18.
I certainly have heard the community and the community's view on this.
is clear.
I've not heard from a member of the community yet that supports keeping it with the revised language.
And so certainly want more information, but that's where my head is at now.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And now Adam.
Thank you, Julian.
Thank you, Dan, for putting all this information together.
My questions are actually very much on the same line as Jeremy and Alan in the sense of really wanting to understand what the law is kind of inside and outside of school.
And so how we distinguish kind of what is going on within our building versus five minutes after school when that student is walking home
Um, and their engagement with, with law enforcement at that point, because I think as a, um, and then similarly, actually, once they are home and in their, you know, in their house and with their parent, um, kind of, again, what, what sort of protections or what the law says there?
Um, I think it makes the most sense to be consistent in all honesty, um, and probably to be more consistent with the home as opposed to a public area if, um, if there's a distinction there.
I'd also like to understand the difference.
I feel like we've used the term interrogation a couple of times.
I don't know if there's a legal distinction between a conversation that may occur versus interrogation.
And I think that a good example may be that 16-year-old who's pulled over and is having a discussion with the police officer
Is that considered an interrogation or is an interrogation something that has a more formal criteria that needs to be defined separately?
And then my final question is, I know in trying to strengthen the policy, we have the note of parent notifications and opportunity to be present regardless of student age.
Um, I'm just also curious how that works, um, with regard to 18 year olds.
Um, and similarly, what happens if you are 18 and you say, I don't want my parent to be present.
I want to be able to talk to a police officer kind of one-on-one.
Um, and whether you do or do not have the ability to, to do that, I would guess you do, but again, I'm not a lawyer.
Um, and again, would just want us to be consistent, um, in that manner with,
kind of the general law of what is or is not possible i i don't know that we would say um that a an 18 year old student uh who doesn't want their parent to be present must you know that their parent must be allowed to be present um if that is not what the law says so um yeah i guess just a lot of a lot of those sorts of definitional questions um i think would be very helpful
Okay.
And then I would like to add a few comments now that everyone has had a chance to speak.
And Dan, I share my appreciation of my colleagues for all the work that you've put in.
to all the policies.
It's been really great.
And the thoughtfulness that you addressed concerns.
There were a couple concerns.
I would also like to thank our public, some of whom wrote in very long letters that were very precise in outlining questions that they had.
So I was hoping I could just ask a couple of the questions that I saw, which was...
I think the first one, which I think is the best would just be like, can we amend the old policy and just say, except in life threatening emergency or imminent danger to the building?
The question was, does the existing policy that we have currently follow the law?
Why is it out of date?
I don't think you did.
I don't think you got that.
And then what in the MOU,
warrants the change.
And I think other people have said this already, but law enforcement wouldn't just be Sharon Police, it could be ICE, it could be the DEA, any of the alphabet agencies.
So if you could address a few of those questions, that would be great too.
Yeah, thanks for teeing those up, Julie.
And we appreciate all the correspondence that we receive on any of these policies.
We consider that stakeholder feedback so important.
Ultimately, we're updating these policies for the benefit, we hope, of the schools and students and of parents.
So hearing from our community is really important.
And that's why we
went to the extraordinary step of even going back to council a second time and asking, can we incorporate this feedback to make the student rights provisions as protective as possible?
So some of those specific questions.
This policy, like a lot of older policies, and JIH is one of our older policies, policies that are 15 years old at this point, they're both overbroad and underbroad.
And what that means is that when you look at them,
They go too far in some instances, having the benefit of hindsight, and they also don't go far enough in other instances.
So when we had counsel review, so counsel flagged different parts of the policies, and they were saying, this portion is overbroad.
It goes way too far.
It's starting to interfere with law enforcement.
It's at odds with...
the latest state of the law, or maybe what our MOU says.
But in most cases, they were saying, this is not broad enough.
It doesn't have enough protection.
So that's true of many of the policies we discussed tonight, but that's also what's going on here.
So it's a little complicated.
The MOU, which is based on the state template, says one thing.
And basically, you could read it for yourself, but basically what it says is that when law enforcement wants to do an investigation or question a student, they need to attempt to contact the parents and give them the opportunity to...
To give them the opportunity to be present.
When you read our policy, it says something different, which is that, again, in some instances, the policy is not broad enough.
So like our current policy, if you're over 18, you're on your own.
If you if you.
might have some disability or impairment.
I'm not suggesting our schools wouldn't be sensitive to those issues and try to communicate with law enforcement, but at least what the policy says is, you know, no, it doesn't matter, hard limit 18, you know, they can be questioned.
So the issue is that when our policy is saying one thing, the MOU is saying another, you look at the state law and what it requires to say something else, what other districts are doing, it's all sort of out of alignment.
So in a best case scenario, our MOU and our policy are congruent with each other in terms of what you're reading.
And when you see what is the current case law reflected in our policy, you're understanding what the role of that case law is in the legal threshold.
So that's why counsel was recommending some of these specific things.
So in terms of an emergency requirement,
You know, it's something we could bring to counsel.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend that because I think it's too narrow of an exception.
I think it is starting to encroach on the law of law enforcement like counsel was concerned about.
You know, there could be matters of serious crimes or whatnot where almost everybody recognizes that law enforcement is appropriate to investigate and start questioning.
But it might not just be like an emergency situation, like a school shooter.
You know, there are other instances our current policy prohibits where maybe even the student wants to talk with law enforcement for some reason.
They want to help their friends.
They want they feel like it's important to tell them something.
And even we've contacted the parent and the parent says, yeah, go ahead and talk to my student.
If the parent isn't physically present, our policy prohibits that.
So again, our policy is just very out of date.
It's very limiting.
And like, I'm not comfortable trying to start to wordsmith and draft these like special exceptions because this subject is too important.
But again, if we want to take that back to council, happy to do that.
Thank you.
And Avi.
Yeah, so I think the point that Jeremy brought up and Alan said he was going to ask as well about stopping police, being stopped as a junior operator, I think is for me is an impactful thought process.
And so I don't I don't want.
to go 100% on this because the person that I reached out to here and just asked, I think, you know, while they're certainly qualified to answer the question, I don't wanna go 100% here, but I believe that the difference, the answer to that question is basically,
the difference between being in custody or not in custody, so custodial versus non-custodial.
So non-custodial questions, they believe, do not require a parent.
So for example, a license, registration.
The person is free to leave, or they're not free to leave in a traffic stop, obviously.
But they are not in custody.
They're sitting in their own vehicle, and they're being asked simple questions.
If they're taken into custody, they then have the right to have a parent present.
And to me, I think it's important for us to recognize that in a strange way, our students are not free to leave.
If our student is sitting in an office, in the principal's office in our school, and then a police officer is present, there's no belief on that student's part that they are free to leave or simply like similar to sitting in their own vehicle.
From my perspective, we have these students in our custody, so to speak, from the start of the day until the end of the day.
And we should recognize that there is a responsibility to protect them from violating their own rights.
I even find it interesting to say we're going to require that Miranda rights be read, but the purpose of having parents present is because there's an understanding that a minor may not fully grasp the necessity of their own Miranda rights.
Julie, you're muted.
I don't know if you're asking me to talk.
I was trying to, sorry.
I was trying to see if Dan wanted to respond or if he wanted to wait for you.
I'll wait.
Okay, go ahead, Adam.
So I just, I heard Avi's point and I thought it was a really good one.
When I think of students in the school, and again, not lawyer, not law enforcement, but I actually think of a school environment as much more similar to being in your car and not being custodial.
I don't know how we distinguish or if we distinguish in terms of
um what and how law enforcement uh behaves but but i would personally have a big uh i would expect there to be a strong difference between um kind of that custodial or not custodial situation like a a law enforcement officer asking a student like some simple questions um seems far more reasonable versus if they are being taken into custody um
I don't know if policies often make that distinction, but that seems like a very, very relevant distinction in terms of how we would want law enforcement engaging with minors who are in our custodial care.
Julie, you might be muted if you're... Sorry, I keep trying.
It's loud in here.
I can't.
Go ahead.
So I'll just... I really appreciate this discussion.
I think there were many good points raised here today about this policy.
I think some of these questions about what the law requires and other...
situations that may or may not be analogous outside the schools are really important questions that get answered.
I'm not the right person to speak to them today.
I'm not comfortable doing that.
What I would suggest is that
Over the next few weeks, perhaps I strategize with our school committee chair, with the administration, maybe with our legal counsel as well, about the best way to speak to some of those issues and get answers and have a follow-up presentation, perhaps later in the month.
And then perhaps we'll be in a better informed position as a body to have that follow-up discussion and maybe make some decisions about this.
Does everybody agree with that?
OK, great.
So thanks for raising.
I'm not quite ready to move on, but I will wrap up the discussion on J.H.
So there were some process issues that Avi raised for discussion.
And I want to hear those those types of concerns.
So I'm not at all criticizing Avi for doing it.
Yeah.
And to be clear, I don't think it's nefarious or like, I just want to make sure we clean that up, but I don't mean to be.
It's fine.
I just wanted to speak to them because you raised them.
So I'm,
So when our policy subcommittee said about this work, and Alan, please feel free to contradict me on any of this.
When we started our work, we sort of set some procedures and principles about how we were going to operate.
And some of the things that I understood that we discussed in that first meeting and agreed
was that the purpose of the subcommittee was to do work and get work done on behalf of the committee and prepare things to bring to the committee as fast and as accurately as we could.
We set some goals.
We discussed that earlier about what we wanted to accomplish this year.
And we also agreed that we weren't going to vote on proposals to bring to school committee.
And one of the reasons, at least I understood why we don't vote on it is because we wanted to stay flexible about how we were working on these policies and how we were bringing them to school committee.
And it was sort of and at times we've recognized that there was some work left to be done outside of the committee, you know, within the reasonable bounds of what everybody understood was going to happen to prepare it, to bring it to school committee consistent with our purpose.
So we made a decision early on.
We're not going to vote on these because that would lock us in.
So we're going to all agree on kind of what generally should happen and what we're going to do and what we're going to bring school committee.
And we're going to go from there.
And some things might happen later.
in the interim within reason.
Like if anybody had a different understanding, we should talk about that.
Absolutely.
But that was how I understood we decided to work as a subcommittee.
The other, excuse me, important point about legal counsel.
I do not want to go to legal counsel any more than I need to.
I want to protect the money of this district.
I don't want to waste anyone's time.
So I've tried to be very judicious
about the times when we have employed legal counsel.
I think there were only two proposals tonight in which we consulted legal counsel.
We try to do it in very targeted ways if we can.
Our school committee chair has been excellent, I want to say, in working with us on these policies.
Julie has been supportive of us every step in the way.
And whenever we have gone to legal counsel, Julie has been part of those emails or discussions.
And we've talked frequently.
And I've tried to make sure that Julie agrees because the privilege of speaking to counsel rests with the chair.
And so I've tried to make sure Julie agrees, yes, this is warranted.
And in both of these cases, they were instances where the administration was asking us, please bring these to legal counsel.
We want their opinion.
So I just wanted to speak to that.
I don't want to go to legal counsel any more than anyone else on this committee, any more than we need to, but just as much as we need to, to preserve tax dollars.
But in this case, I felt like it was important.
So I just wanted to speak to those two points.
Thanks.
Thanks, Dan.
How much is left of your presentation?
Just a couple more.
Can you do your super?
Because we have an executive session, too.
We can.
Thank you.
Yep.
So thanks, everyone.
Moving on, JFABA, besides being a mouthful to say, requires charging tuition for students who might live in Sharon temporarily.
And there is no mask model policy for JFABA.
There is a mask model policy for our policy JFA, which also addresses this topic of tuition.
But that policy references the state law.
And you see that portion of JFA and the state law that it references here on the right.
And basically the whole crux of what this is about is that when you read JFA and you read the state law, it says that we have the option of charging tuition of students who might be living here for a temporary amount of time and that we have the right to waive that charge.
When you read JFABA, again, doesn't have a mass model policy, says something different.
It says they must be charged or they will be charged with tuition.
And so our policies are in conflict.
JFA comes down kind of different from what the law is describing.
And it's restricting us and saying that anytime there's someone temporarily residing, we have to charge a tuition.
I expect that these situations would be largely fact dependent.
There would be situations in which we agree they should really be charging tuition and lots of situations where we'd probably agree they wouldn't be.
So I just want to retain that right and resolve this conflict between our two policies.
And so our recommendation and the recommendation of the administration is to just rescind JFABA and keep that right for ourselves.
We, of course, want to make sure that we're treating everyone fairly and equally and be clear about why we are charging tuition or not charging tuition, but just resolving the conflict.
Is there any discussion?
Okay, JH is our district-wide absence policy.
So this year, we approved...
Sorry.
This year, we...
This year, we approved some new policies.
One of them was a handbook policy at our high school and middle school about what constitutes excused and unexcused absences, how many you can have, things like that.
So our district-wide policy, JH, this is not it.
This is the mass model policy, is very descriptive.
It's very long.
And now it conflicts with what is in our handbooks in terms of what is excused versus what is unexcused.
So MAS recommends that for the big district-wide policy, the school committee votes for it to be broad and handle these topics at a high level.
And then we have the freedom in the student handbooks to prescribe specific policies for our high school, for our middle school, for our elementary school.
and so on.
So that's what mask recommends.
And when you look at the mask model policy, which is right here in front of you, that's exactly what it does.
It doesn't get into detail about what's excused and unexcused.
It just kind of speaks to it generally.
So in this instance, updating to the mask model policy would, in addition to making our policy more up to date,
it would resolve the conflicts that now exist with our student handbooks and could interfere with what we voted for our school buildings to do earlier this year.
There is one highlighted item in the note at the bottom of the mass model policy.
Our administration asked to add that in there, and that comes directly from the state guidance, which is that link that you see in the policy.
So it's not custom language.
It's just making that explicit that those definitions should be included in the school handbooks, which we do.
Starting to lose my voice.
Is there any discussion?
Okay, thanks.
Two left.
They should be quick.
So policy JICJ is another one of these kinds of situations.
It covers technology in our schools, technology like cell phones, other devices.
So earlier this year,
We approved some cell phone policies at the high school and the middle school to be part of the student handbook.
So as a result of those votes we took, our existing JICJ now conflicts with what's in the handbook.
So same sort of a deal.
The mask model policy is broader.
It leaves those matters to the handbook.
So our recommendation is to update to the mask model policy for JICJ and resolve those conflicts.
Any discussion?
Nope, and the last one.
So congratulations, everyone.
You survived.
LBC is relations with non-public schools, what you might call schools like private schools or other types of schools that aren't public schools.
So there is actually a requirement that when there's a private school that wants to operate in a Massachusetts district, it's the school committee that reviews the school and gives them approval.
That might be a surprise for some people.
In our policy LBC,
there is a specific requirement that we would review all the private schools in our district and get into their curriculum and audit them and revalidate them at least every three to five years.
So that's not in the mask model policy.
It's not a state requirement.
It's just something that's in our existing policy.
Obviously, we haven't been doing that, perhaps because it's so onerous.
And so what the mask model policy recommends instead is that
If a private school makes a substantial change to their program, if they've radically altered something, then they would come back to us and that would warrant revalidation of their program.
But we wouldn't be strictly required to do that full review of their curriculum and everything else every three to five years, which we're not doing anyway.
So our recommendation is to update to the mask model policy that other districts use.
Is there any discussion of this last item?
All right, thank you so much.
That's always a lot, everyone.
I think this work is important, and I really appreciate your time tonight.
Thank you, Dan, and appreciate all that you put into it.
It's quite a lot.
So now we are going to move to the decision items, okay?
So we are just going to go knock these into motion to vote to accept the donation from Dedham Savings Bank.
was $750 for the snow globe contest.
Is there a motion?
So moved.
Okay, thank you.
Is there a second?
Second.
Great.
Jeremy?
Yes.
Dan?
Yes.
Alan?
Yes.
Adam?
Yes.
Avi?
Yes.
And I'm a yes.
Next item, vote to approve the new 2024-2025 SAF clubs.
I'll accept a motion.
So moved.
Thank you.
Awesome.
Jeremy?
Yes.
Dan?
Yes.
Alan?
Yes.
Adam?
Yes.
Avi?
Yes.
And I'm a yes.
Vote to approve the SHS Science Quiz Bowl field trip, which is on February 22nd at the University of Connecticut.
Is there a motion?
Moved.
Great.
Second.
Thank you.
Jeremy?
Yes.
Dan?
Yes.
Alan?
Yes.
Adam?
Yes.
Avi?
Yes.
And I am a yes.
Vote to approve the ASHS competency determination that was presented at the last meeting on January 22nd.
I'll accept a motion.
So moved.
Great.
I'll second.
Thank you.
Jeremy?
Yes.
Dan?
Yes.
Alan?
Yes.
Adam?
Yes.
Avi?
Yes.
Yes.
And I'm yes.
The final is to vote to nominate and approve an alternate representative to the recreation committee.
Alan is our current representative and we appreciate his contributions.
However, sometimes he has unavoidable conflicts and he can't make these meetings.
And although
We are not a voting member.
The recreation department does involve things where it would be nice to have school committee render an opinion or assistance.
So I was wondering if there was anyone who would care to be an alternate to go to the Sharon Recreation Committee meetings when Alan is unavailable.
Is there anyone interested?
I'll do it.
Thank you, Robbie.
Does we need to vote to appoint Avi as the alternate to the Recreation Committee?
Is there a motion?
So moved.
Okay.
I heard Adam and Alan.
Jeremy?
Yes.
Dan?
Yes.
Alan?
Yes.
Adam?
Yes.
Avi?
Yes.
And I'm a yes.
And at this point, we are going to say goodbye to our audience because we are going into executive session.
Pursuant to MGLC 30A S21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation with the STAIA unit.
If an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining or litigation position of the Sharon School Committee and the chair so declares not to return
to open session.
And so I will accept a motion to close this meeting and go into executive session.
So moved.
Second.
Thank you.
Jeremy?
Yes.
Dan?
Yes.
Alan?
Yes.
Adam?
Yes.
Avi?
Yes.
And I am a yes.
I'll see you on the other side.
Thank you.