Coraggio Consulting
Loudoun County Public Schools, Student Services Committee Meeting, Thursday, November 6, 2025

Date: Thursday, November 6, 2025
Place: LCPS Administration Building / School Board Room, Ashburn, Virginia
Length: 1h 38m (video)
Official meeting video (Vimeo / LCPS-TV): https://player.vimeo.com/video/1134485510?rel=0

Machine transcript (speech-to-text) produced by Coraggio Consulting. Not an official county record. Names and numbers may be misspelled; check the video at the timestamp before quoting.
Speech-to-text: whisper.cpp, model large-v3-turbo. Produced 2026-10-12. Timestamps are [HH:MM:SS] into the meeting video.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[00:00:00] afternoon everyone thank you for joining us for the november 6 2025 meeting of the student services committee i am ann donahue i am the chair of this committee with me are ms melinda mansfield and ms carrie labelle my fellow committee members this meeting is being audio recorded it is not being live streamed or video recorded but it is being audio recorded and it will be posted and available to listen to on the LCPS website in the very near future the first item on our agenda is public

[00:00:33] comment I do see that we have at least one speaker signed up for public comment we do I will read our public comment guidance thank you for engaging with the school board through the public comment process the school board welcomes comments from Loudoun County residents and community and believes that strong community engagement and outreach are important components of a successful school system Speakers must limit comments to the time allotted. Based on the number of speakers in the agenda this evening, all speakers have been allotted three minutes for public comment. Speakers who miss their time slot will not be called at a later time.

[00:01:08] All audience members shall maintain civility, decorum, and respect for the functioning and dignity of the school board at all times and abide by the public comment procedure set forth in School Board Policy 2520 entitled Participation by the Public and on the LCPS Citizen Participation website. Those resources also provide information on the distribution of materials to school board members as under no circumstances may a speaker approach the board members.

[00:01:32] In accordance with school board policy 2520 speakers should refrain from vulgarity obscenities defamation profanity or other like breaches of civility decorum and respect speakers also may not target criticize or attack individual students and or individual division employees during public comment or engage in conduct that otherwise disrupts or delays the meeting.

[00:01:51] Inappropriately loud conversations are outbursts those in attendance will not be tolerated and security staff may be asked to restore order per school board policy 2520 when reasonable i will warn a speaker of breaches of decorum or these rules prior to terminating speaking privileges or taking other action to preserve the civility decorum and orderly conduct of the meeting which could include but is not limited to directing staff to remove the attendee from the remainder of the meeting and or public comment period being concluded we look forward to hearing comments before we get into comments i I would like to just add,

[00:02:30] I was remiss that at our last committee meeting, during public comment, comments were made directed to one specific and identified staff member, and were negative of and critical towards that staff member. And that is a violation of the guidelines that I have just read out.

[00:02:48] So I would remind public speakers not to make any comments that target or criticize individual division employees. With that, I see we have one public commenter signed up.

[00:03:08] I am setting a timer for three minutes and ask that you please speak into the microphone. Mr. Wittes.

[00:03:27] Can you please move to the table for the microphone? Thank you. - Hi again, how are you?

[00:03:45] Not the first time I've said something, but let me try and follow through with a bit more. I can see from observing these meetings that there are good intentions from all sides of the room, particularly Ms. Mansfield on special ed that I certainly appreciate, so thank you.

[00:04:02] What I do see, however, is policy 8155 is already quite complicated, quite involved, clauses other than instructional suitability that I think and I hope the board might review and change.

[00:04:21] What I feel like you're missing is not much focus on the process issues I went through and some of the roles of interaction with student services.

[00:04:38] However, TEDRA has been kind enough to try and address some of those, and apparently I may have made some observations that were positive. But I still think the process isn't that clear. And where you talked about timetables last time, still it still concerns me that that the appeals board for special permissions the appeals board meeting that typically comes after spring break in the end of april is quite an intimidating thing to go through as a parent um it lacks a bit of disclosure and transparency and there's no way

[00:05:13] even though that happens the end of april i've been able to say well hang on a second i still think you've got this wrong as clearly i seem to be saying um and therefore have a chance to come back before school ends or before new school begins i know there are some logistical headaches with that but i think that would be fair if there was a way to say in the case of the 30 middle class students last year who were denied right and maybe those on iep that could you take a bit more time and review it one more time i think that would be fair in all student cases the only other the only other things i wanted to say was if you look at the language

[00:05:49] of policy 8155 and yesterday i used grok ai to review it because it's not something i want to spend all evening looking at it does occur to me i was looking for two things it occurs to me that the words may and the phrase discretion of the school division appear over 35 times in policy 8155 including the red line stuff that you're looking at from lines 55 to 413 as a parent it means that may and discretion of school board gives all the optionality in the favor of the

[00:06:23] divisions to make changes or make a decision on a particular student that we as parents have real no say and it's very difficult to appeal against and I want to make that clear that I know your intentions are good to change this but process particularly isn't being addressed this meeting.

[00:06:45] Thank you for sharing your input with us. We will now move on to item number three on our agenda approval of the minutes from our October 16th 2025 Student Services Committee meeting the draft minutes are in our packet and have been posted on board docs if anyone recommends any changes or edits we can discuss that now and if there are no changes or edits to be made to the draft I will entertain a

[00:07:18] motion to approve the minutes Thank You chair Donahue I move that we approve the minutes as written thank you is there a second thank you chair I second that motion has been properly moved and seconded all those in favor please raise your hand and say aye aye that motion passes unanimously and while I thought about using my discretion to go out of order and do the info item first I won't

[00:07:56] so we'll move on to item number four our action item revision of policy 8155

[00:08:03] school assignment mr. Dolson the floor is yours sorry about that technical

[00:08:38] difficulty so at the board's request we did revise the instruction of suitability portion of policy 8155 and we can go to the next slide binds 50 through 58 are projected here for you currently the policy reads instruction suitability is the reassignment of a student to a different school when it becomes necessary to provide a more appropriate instructional program that meets the students academic and there should be a comma between academic and social social or emotional needs instruction suitability is a request by

[00:09:17] a parent or legal guardian to transfer a student to a non over enrolled school other than the regular school of assignment this transfer is done at the discretion of the school division and may be a result of disciplinary safety social emotional or mental health concerns issues concerning student mental health or physical health or that arise due to a significant life event may be addressed at any time during the year.

[00:09:41] We also went through line 60 through 81 and we removed some of the language that we had added previously based on the feedback from our last meeting. So it now reads starting at line 60. Once a parent legal guardian has exhausted all school resources as outlined in 8155 reg C.4.

[00:10:03] they may request that their student be reassigned to a non over enrolled school. Considerations for instructional suitability are focused on ensuring that students are provided with an instructional program that better meets their individual needs. And then skipping down to line 70 currently in the red line students reassigned due to instructional suitability are not entitled to transportation services provided by the school division unless specified otherwise in accordance with established transportation policies and procedures.

[00:10:35] And then in the red line, the current version, we then would skip down to line 80 right now, which would then say specialized academic programs have separate procedures for the placement of students.

[00:10:51] Would we like to, we're gonna keep going and then we can go back to questions or, okay. I'll try to go through the rest of this 'cause the rest of this is pretty much just a review. On this slide, you see the application requirements.

[00:11:06] The only change really here that we just wanted to point out is the date. So that update reflects the new end date of the special permission timeline being March 31st of 2026. And then on the next slide we have updates that reflect a more detailed outline of the process for principals to rescind special permission.

[00:11:31] It specifies that parents and students will be afforded the opportunity to meet with school administrators case managers if appropriate and counseling team prior to the rescission taking place. and that is on the next slide as well.

[00:11:49] So I did want to go ahead and go over some community feedback that we received and really outline some of the or highlight some of the feedback that we received from different committees and also parents that supported either changing or not changing this policy.

[00:12:12] So the first area that we sort of grouped all of our feedback was the preservation of special permission and its flexibility multiple parents really specified to not drastically change or restrict the current special permission policy families value this reason in this option for reasons such as socioeconomic and neighborhood factors EL support differences among schools course availability at the high school level childcare challenges and family dynamics specifically

[00:12:50] divorce, work, or commute, and sibling placements and maintaining stability. Parents also argued that many conditions already ensure fairness, the 90 percent capacity limits, no sports eligibility for one year, and no transportation provided.

[00:13:08] This overall sentiment choice supports student success and family. The next area was the need for equity and inclusions considerations.

[00:13:24] The equity team proposed detailed policy revisions to ensure equitable access and non-discriminatory outcomes in school assignments. Those recommendations included adding explicit references to students with disabilities English learners and students with mental health or trauma related needs guaranteeing transportation for reassignments based on educational or social emotional needs prioritizing placements for homeless foster care and military connected students ensuring multilingual communication for non-English speaking families and conducting annual equity impact reviews and establishing

[00:14:00] equity compliance monitoring to identify and address patterns of segregation or limited access. Moving on to the third area, appeals and accountability enhancements. Feedback here suggested that families qualifying under income or disability needs should have the right for advocacy support during appeals.

[00:14:23] panels should consider equity implications in their decisions and the school board should receive public reports on assignment and transfer equity trends the fourth area can continuity for current students several parents urged the board to grandfather current students under existing special permission approvals through high school graduation disruption to academic and social stability and emotional and developmental setbacks for students repeatedly rezoned. And then finally, the general themes just to summarize, stability, families want

[00:15:03] consistent school experiences amid rezoning, fairness to support, support for keeping transparent, equitable decision-making processes, choice, parents value flexibility to find environments best suited for their children's needs, and equity calls for more proactive inclusion of vulnerable or underrepresented populations and then moving on to some staff feedback so we also categorized feedback from different offices in different areas that as you know in doing what you're doing both with the attendance rezoning and looking

[00:15:42] at this policy this policy does impact many offices within the school division so the first area with stakeholder trust and communication shortening the application window may be perceived as inconsistent with the divisions goals of equity transparency and open communication and stakeholders may view the change negatively eroding public trust and confidence and decision-making increased administrative workload school board members are expected to receive a higher volume of complaints from families who miss the new shorter deadline the change could create unnecessary strain on both

[00:16:19] administrative and elective staff. The reduced access for families and employees. Newly registered students may lose the opportunity to apply for special permission if their registration occurs after the cutoff date. The timing overlap with spring break will reduce staff availability to support families increasing confusion and limiting equitable access. Employees affected by boundary changes would have only a brief 15-day window to apply creating an equity compared to the general public area for increased complexity due to

[00:16:55] rezoning with the rezoning affecting 18 schools the number of special permission requests is expected to rise significantly shortening the timeline may hinder the division's ability to manage the increased volume effectively and equitably and then area 5 staffing and special education applications staffing for 26 27 may not be finalized by the proposed deadline leading to uncertainty in application decisions and then special education students could be disproportionately impacted as their placements depend on coordination of specialized staff and services.

[00:17:31] And finally the need for parent awareness of VHSL regulation changes families require sufficient time to understand the new VHSL eligibility rules linking middle school placement to high school sports participation. Shortening the timeline could lead to uninformed decisions and eligibility issues for students entering the ninth grade and that is all of the feedback I have you Mr. Dawson and thank you Ms. Richardson

[00:18:09] and the staff for putting together the summary of this information which is very helpful as we work through consideration of the changes of potential changes I expect that there are going to be several questions and topics of discussions I I would like to start with to my first one I'm looking at the page 7 of the red lines from lines 296 to 98 where you've added in some years LCPS may require that the opening of the application window for employees

[00:18:48] be delayed to know later than the third Tuesday of January is this is this something that will be spelled out more in regulation we certainly could do that yeah I think this year just given the other job that you all are doing with the attendance zones it's it's sort of a perfect storm so yes we certainly could could add more definitive language in the regulation to clarify I think that would make sense I I don't know that I think it's necessary to add more into the

[00:19:24] policy I think it's good that we have that carve out but I think it could benefit from a little bit more specificity in regulation and then my other the other thing I was going to ask you to address are the I saw that there were a number of comments raising concerns related to the interaction of this policy and reassignment to relieve overcrowding can you speak to any overlap or interaction so I think if the the spirit of this policy is to do

[00:20:04] just that to help we to relieve overcrowding currently what we have in policy is that and I'll use an elementary example for once a school gets to be at 100 percent capacity or 90 percent capacity and that according to this policy people that move in during the school year are then reassigned to a school that has space so if the third grade at Madison's Trust Elementary school is already at capacity and there's no more space than those students are reassigned in order to relieve over overcrowding and that is it's mentioned

[00:20:42] in this policy as well as it is there just to do just that to relieve overcrowding I think the biggest concern that this policy tries to resolve is the fact that many of our schools all of our schools are great schools.

[00:20:59] Many of our schools have thriving programs within them that other schools don't have as thriving. And so the spirit I believe of this policy is to create equitable opportunities across the division.

[00:21:16] Because as I said all of our schools are great schools. It does not it does not highlight a family's ability to pick a school just because they want to go to that school for that enhanced program or that team or.

[00:21:36] And I feel like that's what this policy is trying to resolve and I feel like you all as a committee and I think the board as a whole is trying to tighten the reins on what special permission actually means which is when we see students that are struggling we want to create opportunities for them in any capacity that we can and that's what the heart of this policy is really about is about and we talked about what instructional suitability is truly about.

[00:22:05] I think we've done a pretty good job at articulating that to some of the public comment that we've received even this evening this is a very convoluted process and I appreciate that feedback because making it clear is I think what we all want to do but to answer your question Ms. Donahue at the heart of of what this policy was written for harkens back to when we were building two and three schools every year to keep up with just the volume of students that were enrolling in Loudoun County Public Schools

[00:22:40] especially during the time of like 2005 to 2015 and right now we're not seeing that volume as much as we were. So you all now have to sort of solve some of the problems that have occurred and that is where you then get to see some of the bubbles in some of our schools that are overcrowded and you saw the data last night I know that Miss Tate presented to you where you saw the move-ins and move-outs And that's good data to look at because it is – it harkens a lot of questions, in my opinion.

[00:23:18] Vance Fields? Yeah. So I'm not sure that your question was quite answered. Our special – our boundary issue right now, if they switch and the kids are still in like a – so Dominion Trail.

[00:23:40] Some of them are going to be – possibly don't freak out anybody, but there's a possibility that some of them might be moving, right? possibility what if there were some kids there from special permission which I don't think there are but there may be um kids there from special permission um would they still be able to stay for that boundary process or would they have are we redoing everything at that time that is a

[00:24:13] fantastic question I would say in some so I think that would be a decision that you all might have to make as a board whether or not you want to take the initiative to say any student who is at a school that is going to be impacted by these boundary changes will revert back to their base school or their zone of attendance and they would have to apply again and it would be a new application would not be a renewal.

[00:24:49] Currently what we have done in order to ease the application process is that elementary students just roll to the next grade. And again we had the discussion that the main reason that I felt like that was important for my elementary principal colleagues was so that they were not worried about staffing all throughout.

[00:25:10] So if you had 50 students in an elementary school that were on special permission and they were not going they did not renew or they did not get approved 50 students that could be three three teachers. So we really worked to make sure that they rolled back up.

[00:25:30] So go with third or fourth, fourth to fifth. I feel like that's what is in this policy. So to answer your question, Ms. Mansfield, I think we would need to look at the data and see how many kids are currently at those schools that are being impacted with attendance zones that are also on special permission to give you a better idea of what you'd be dealing with.

[00:25:51] There may not be very many, but there could be a handful. if I could interject I'm looking at the some of the information that Miss Tate provided for our meeting last night related to special permission and some of the schools that are being proposed for boundary changes the one that we hear frequently about is Madison's Trust heavily over enrolled and the data here for 25 26 school year is indicates that there are 48 students on special

[00:26:29] permission into Madison's trust to your point it's a lot of that's a lot of students and in other schools there you know there's another elementary school that has 45 students going out of that district or that school attendance zone for that elementary school on special permission so that's going to be have to be a board decision is to decide whether or not we want a level set or not level

[00:27:04] that's what I'm hearing it would be extraneous and I don't know and I hate to ask miss Tate I think the question really would be is that something that is going to be continued because I know this is just the first iteration of attendance zone conversations and so my advice would be create something that can be replicated for secondary I just don't know are we gonna have the same problem with secondary as it's larger yeah we have more students that are in

[00:27:42] middle and high schools on special permission than you do in elementary so the question was our students on special permission in the 18 schools that we're talking about now included in the base capacity and you did explain last night that they are calculated in that base capacity the question was so okay I'm on special permission at Dominion Trail but then I need a carve out right so some

[00:28:15] students currently slated for Dominion Trail might be rezoned to go to another school what happens to those students on special permission working the process backwards they special students on special permission Dominion Trails the example would go back to their home schools of residents and then have to reapply for the special permission process.

[00:28:43] That's the way that we've just problem solved that. But certainly Ms. Tate if you want to weigh in or share any information we appreciate you being here. Thank you very much. You're so sweet. Truly you are.

[00:29:00] Right. I understand that and I support that thought because if we were to rezone students who also wanted to go back to their former school potentially in this you know, proposed, you know, the potential Dominion Trail example that we're rezoning them.

[00:29:22] But, yeah, so we would have students who were rezoned to another school who would also like to go back. And if Dominion Trail, in this example, hypothetical, were full still, then they would be behind those that were already.

[00:29:41] And so working the process back, thank you, Ms. Tate, working the process backwards would be applicable to middle and high schools as well. So then that would give everybody who may be impacted by whatever rezoning decisions are made, everybody would reset with special permission at those particularly impacted schools.

[00:30:05] So I guess I could get behind the, although I really don't think that the school board, it was really hard, and I'm not going to be here anymore, but it was really hard to get people to come in July and August for those special permission appeals.

[00:30:24] I mean I think that that would be that would be a reason to maybe for this year keep it at April I think that's what it was and then maybe the year after that go to although I mean we're doing boundaries all over the place right now.

[00:30:46] So I appreciate that proposal I do think that and this is just me I am actually a constituent as well I think it's the fairest way to approach this only because you are looking at 18 different attendance zones and that is another piece of a puzzle that two years ago when we were first talking about 8155 we weren't we weren't working on trying to merge this policy with oh what about rezoning schools.

[00:31:20] So I feel like that is a very it's it's an appropriate position for this committee and the full board to consider because of and I'll just say it the emotion that we know that comes with rezoning elementary middle or high schools I think that's a very fair piece of this policy to keep intact and then the questions that you posed about you know what happens if you're at a school that's being rezoned and you want to remain that that's

[00:31:56] another conversation. Chair how do you want to do this I mean I do have some amendments and thoughts how would you like to proceed. Thank you Ms. Mansfield Before we get into specific amendment proposals I would like to check in with Ms. LaBelle if you have general questions, comments, anything that you want to follow up on with Ms. Richardson or Mr. Dolson separate from any specific amendment language proposals.

[00:32:29] Yes, thank you, Chair Donahue. I have to agree with Mr. Dolson. If a student is someplace where it's being redistricted, revised, and they're there on special permission, they really need to go back to their base school so that the students, that we have an accurate account of the students that are in the new district policy, then we will know how much room we have.

[00:32:57] Because without having them go back to their original home schools, it further complicates the mathematics of how are we going to balance this and how are the kids that as you said that were there and moved out and they want to go back there too and we already said well there's no room for you to come back at all because we let all these other special permission people stay.

[00:33:19] So I think that that that is a very important part of it whether we're talking about elementary middle or high school. So then the thought is do we put it in here or do we do it to the full board.

[00:33:35] I mean do we. anyway and so should we just put it in here I know we're gonna be staying another an hour after this I think but with everything you know so I think we could work on some language that could incorporate this within attendance zone language and then that would be something that you could I for clarification Ms. Mansfield when when you say should we add this in what do you mean by this should we add this now or wait for the full board so this would be

[00:34:10] a statement of some sort that says during reboundary or reboundary what do you call it boundary zone I don't know is it boundary zone because it's not redistricting it's boundaries yeah probably rezoning during rezoning times so smarter than I am we were just looking at we could add a section after relieving overcrowding which is C and we could just add language that I know my colleague Miss Tate would help me with in order to incorporate rezoning

[00:34:49] structures within the school division I know that we will probably not this will not be the last time we ever in Loudoun County Public Schools rezone I think having whether we get bigger or smaller we may be changing things around again so I think at this point if we put in something that is very specific very clear and can stand the test of time that that's an important consideration

[00:35:28] whether we go up or down we still need it sorry to interrupt Ms. Mansfield but since we since we don't have specific language right now I think my inclination would be not to try and craft language right now for us to vote on but if we are leaning towards wanting to consider making an addition like that perhaps we could impose upon Miss Richardson and her staff to come up with some language

[00:36:05] that can be presented as information I don't work on drafting language prior to Tuesday and have it prepared for the full board thank you and then we don't have to spend a lot of time trying to hammer out a specific language right now yes okay one more thing instructional suitability a little different than special permission so is this going to be for the instructional suitability as well because if they're going to go back to their home school that's where they we were placing them from that so I think that's something to be thought about

[00:36:41] when you guys craft that language just like we were discussing today about instructional suitability and the you know and the extra and the amendment I'm coming up with but so it's a different process. I suppose that's a question I don't know sorry to put you on the spot Ms. Tate but if Ms. Richardson or Mr.

[00:37:03] Dolson is aware if a student is assigned to a school other than the school of their that they their home school for instructional suitability reasons and then there is a potential boundary zone change with the student who is assigned to a different school on the basis of instructional suitability then what happens with that student does that student stay at the school that they were assigned to for instructional suitability services or what we've done for for last year because that was the first year that we we rolled students

[00:37:42] that were on special permission and we did not require them to reapply we just required them to renew what we did in order to ease that process is any student that was in the school on instructional suitability when you are at a school for a different reason of attendance other than it being your home school there are codes that we use for that process to determine things like we're talking about right now.

[00:38:08] How many kids are at River Bend Middle School on instructional suitability. How many kids that are there are on special permission. Because these two areas of this policy are so close in order to roll the students effectively from sixth grade to seventh grade and seventh grade to eighth grade at River Bend we made all of the students that were at River Bend Middle School on instructional suitability also a part of the special permission process.

[00:38:35] What that did is it automatically rolled them. It still allowed them the opportunity for the parents to decide you know what River Bend we can't transport anymore we need to go back to Eagle Ridge we need to go back to trail side. so we we did that internally just to ease that I guess the administrative process so again principals knew how many kids were going to be at their school if they rolled all of those students up so we sort of took care of that problem I do think that to Ms. Mansfield's point these are to you and what I really appreciate about the conversation is we are really looking

[00:39:13] at instruction of suitability as the meat of this versus it just being an ability to apply for special permission that's what I keep hearing sort of shared by this this committee and some of your colleagues and I appreciate that because I think that gets at the heart of what this policy is trying to do so to answer your question we have already taken care of that so all of the students that are on instructional suitability are considered part of that school's numbers and they will roll up to the next grade level unless it's going from fifth to sixth grade or eighth to ninth grade.

[00:40:28] I do have some proposed amendments and so looking at feedback and things like that first of all okay let's just start with an easy one but this isn't one but on line 61 I think we need a link for the 8155 regulation see that's easy but that's not an amendment the next one 63 through 65 I feel like we can delete this because I feel it's

[00:41:06] redundant from the previous paragraph we're kind of saying it twice because the considerations for instructional suitability are focused on ensuring the students are provided with an instructional program that are better meets their individual educational needs it's kind of the same thing as we're saying here the trend you know ish that you know instructional suitability is the reassignment of a student to a different school when it becomes necessary to provide a more appropriate instructional program that meets the student's academic social or emotional needs instructional suitability

[00:41:43] is but I think that kind of we also talk about safety emotional disciplinary and mental health concerns there on 55 and 56 I just think that it's kind of redundant so that would be one motion to delete those lines do you want me just go through them or do you want to think about it each one I think it makes sense to let's go through other suggestions as well I'm extra you know the other one would be 80 I think that line 80 I think that oh sorry no the one before that and

[00:42:16] 79 line 79 I would add if instructional suitability is denied at any time during the year parents will be notified and provided the opportunity to to appeal per policy 2520 we took that pot that that ability out this time but I think that we need to put their ability to appeal back in an administrative appeal for instructional suitability I think this one actually was in regulation and then the sec the next one

[00:42:51] would be specialized academic programs and I did have a question we were is this going to be for 81 changing the wording to there I mean they were saying that there's separate procedures for students who are being assigned to specialized special education program classrooms or are we gonna put also specialized academic programs like there's a there's a difference between special programs for special education or specialized academic programs should we

[00:43:23] put both in my read of the language that is currently proposed on lines 80 and 81 and please Ms. Richardson or Ms. Nolson if I'm if I'm mistaken please correct me but my my understanding of that specialized academic programs have separate procedures for the placement of students.

[00:43:43] I interpret that as basically flagging if there is a request for a transfer for the reason of instructional suitability that is not necessarily going to be an appropriate avenue if we're talking about NJROTC or Academies of Loudoun or because those all have separate processes.

[00:44:05] To Ms. Mansfield's point of do we also need to flag anything in here related to special education placement. - And showing that that's not what this is. That that has a separate. - Well that's something I was actually wondering about was 'cause it's nothing in section B specifically includes or excludes special education Services or students who are on you know IEP or 504 so I I wanted to ask for clarification Absolutely is that covered by section B or not it is so the process is applicable to every student that that we serve

[00:44:44] So any parent or guardian can initiate this process and certainly once we access student information system And we see that it's a student with with a disability the very first thing I do is jump over to Virginia IEP to look at the document and impact of disability, so special education and section 504 accommodations are naturally Considered when weighing the parents request for a change in school assignment due to instructional suitability So from our practical and our app our application of this policy

[00:45:19] There doesn't need to be a carve-out because we're looking at each individual case when it's presented by the parent or guardian we reach out to both principals the principal that would possibly be losing the student we'd like to hear your perspective do they also need to reach out to classroom teachers to get some more information then we sit down and we look across our schools we're looking at capacity we start with looking in your cluster first and then within your region because we don't want to place you too far away from your home school and then we start beginning to have that conversation with building principles about we have this situation let's let's schedule a time

[00:45:57] for us to to connect or sometimes it's working with the parents to say let's go back to the table might you be open to a restorative practices opportunity maybe there's some additional resources that you weren't aware of available at at your current schools so each case is viewed right there on face value as what is presented so there doesn't need to be a carve-out for SPED or 504 because we're already considering in the top part but in the bottom part we're at 88 81 could should we put something like I mean because specialized special education

[00:46:34] program classrooms is always is also another separate place you know it's it's a separate procedure as well so it is so the determination of students being placed in specialized programs because they require specially designed in instruction is a separate process from special permission and instructional suitability. So if you were in a program currently and your parents raised the concerns of I want a change in school assignment because I'm not happy with said program and here's why, we would have

[00:47:10] to look at another school within your cluster or within your region that has that same specialized program and it's not to capacity. Would it be fair to say specialized academic programs and specialized special education program classrooms have separate procedures for the placement of students that provides clarity yes but that okay so that's okay so that's not all my stuff y'all hate me um okay the other one would be for we have for our and we have for special permission

[00:47:48] that you don't go from elementary school I mean let's say you're in fifth grade it doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to go to the sixth grade of the the path that follow of the like if you're at Cardinal Ridge now you don't necessarily aren't going to be going to Lunsford you might have to go to Will Willard if that's your if that's your home school just so that's for special permission but I wanted it to be here for instructional suitability the instructional suitability that is approved for an elementary school grade level has no bearing on whether

[00:48:27] instructional suitability will be approved for a student to attend a middle school from that elementary school and instructional suitability that is approved for a middle school grade level has no bearing on whether instructional suitability will be approved for a student to attend a high school from that middle school does that is the I mean we make it clear with special permission that it's limited.

[00:48:58] So is there when a student is reassigned on the basis of instructional suitability does that carry over to the following year within the same school. We do so as I was saying earlier we we unless the parent or the student expresses interest in not remaining at that school they would be grandfathered they would have to renew their their instruction suitability under the special permission renewal process and they would remain unless they decide to rescind that seat at that school.

[00:49:33] So I appreciate Ms. Mansfield's approach in trying to make this very clear because when you go from 5th to 6th grade and 8th to 9th grade it's very likely that that feeder middle school well it's more likely that the feeder high school is going to be already at capacity it's going to be 90 percent or more and so those applications are now voided so we have reduced the number of appeals that come to a appeal board by virtue of saying this school is at capacity that clarifies a chair

[00:50:12] Donahue a little bit about that guessing game because I think we do have and again going back to some of the public comment that we've heard parents do make the assumption that if I'm at fifth grade at Seldon's Landing I'm going to go to sixth grade at Belmont Ridge Middle School and if Belmont Ridge Middle School is one of our over enrolled schools which it's not.

[00:50:31] But if it was that would not be their path they would go back to their their base middle school. Thank you for that Mr. Dolson that proposal that proposed addition also makes sense um the other one would be 80 let's see okay so let me move on to we did that one okay so in line 195 we do sorry I had a thought I

[00:51:07] had an additional thought related to section B can we add the last sentence of that first paragraph under section B.

[00:51:26] Says this transfer is done at the discretion and may be a result of well somewhere in there I would like to add special education services to make it clear. Which line. I'm sorry. Somewhere in that first paragraph of.

[00:51:42] OK. Of B maybe 50 maybe 52 maybe 56 right instructional program that better meets a student's academic, social, or emotional needs, or later on where it says this transfer is done at the discretion of the school division may be a result of disciplinary, safety, social, emotional, or mental health concerns.

[00:52:09] If we can add somewhere in there just to make it clear that instructional suitability placement, these provisions do apply to or extend to special education services. - Could you put disability then?

[00:52:24] Disciplinary, safety, disability, social, emotional, mental health concerns you to put it right after maybe the result of and you could add the word disability and then go on with disciplinary safety emotional social etc etc it would fit right in there that the consensus of the

[00:53:00] committee does that give you any heartburn Ms. Richardson no it doesn't because as I read it it doesn't exclude anybody so I'm fine if we want to specify that's fine yeah and then the last sentence of that paragraph issues concerning student mental or physical health or that arise due to a significant life event may be addressed any time during the year.

[00:53:27] Are we saying that any request for instructional suitability under this paragraph can be brought up at any time or are we because my concern is if we say issues concerning student mental or physical health or due to a significant life event is that it could be interpreted as narrowed like the bases for which you could request an instructional suitability evaluation transfer any time would be limited to only certain categories yeah so well it is limited to that because again the the the spirit of this school assignment is

[00:54:05] first you enter into the special permission process what instructional suitability allows you to do is after that that window has closed this then provision allows for you to apply for instructional suitability which may look very similar to why you're applying for special permission so it is not meant to limit the reason why it is just there because there are some significant life events that occur in a student's life that requires us as a division to

[00:54:39] consider reassigning a student based on his or her personal needs so it was not meant to limit the scope but we would always guide a and coach a parent or a a student through if you are applying attend to school other than you're assigned school you need to enter into the special permission process.

[00:55:01] If that window has closed then you would go through instructional suitability. DIRECTOR DEWOLF: Thank you for that Mr. Doulson. I unless there's anything else about instructional suitability for instructional suitability.

[00:55:33] So I I will say when we discussed this at our last meeting I was somewhat reluctant to make changes to this instructional suitability definition and I received as I believe my colleagues have also received some outreach from from Ms. Khan the chair of SIAC among some other some other comments with raising concerns about the instructional suitability language that is currently being proposed because we are making an

[00:56:09] effort to push this forward I just wanted to say I saw those I'm aware of the email and I am reviewing the concerns but I I do not feel like I personally have had enough time to go through all of their specific concerns to recommend whether we should make additional changes in response to that I just wanted to put that out there we've discussed instructional suitability are

[00:56:42] there other are there other proposed amendments yes ma'am okay so then we have like we talked about for instructional suitability there's also online 194 for some reason we didn't put in like special special permission that is approved for an elementary school grade level has no bearing on whether special permission will be approved for a student to attend a middle school from

[00:57:19] that elementary school we have the other you know middle to high but we forgot the elementary school we forgot to explicitly state and policy that so that is that and then my last two are on line 245 I previewed this with y'all last time my thought is that I want to have two protections in here one is if a student with disabilities receives a warning

[00:57:56] letter from the principal an IEP or 504 meeting must be convened before rescission to determine if more supports or resources should be considered and so that triggers an IEP or 504 meeting the second one for general ed is I feel like we should it would be line 246 and we would be deleting the word not because I feel like there should be an appeal of administrative decisions at that level if

[00:58:29] they're going to be rescinded it was before and then it was decided upon not to do it but I think that I want to give that protection just that one more level just in case so those are my two that's it that's all my Ms. Mansfield could you clarify there is added language stating the principal must initiate a warning letter prior to rescinding special permission.

[00:59:05] Can you clarify what additional changes you're proposing. So that's just period right for general ed and for special ed right they give a warning letter. This thing that I'm talking about is if you're a student with disabilities and you receive that warning letter from the principal now an IEP or 504 meeting must be convened before rescission happens before you can make that determination to determine if more supports or resources should

[00:59:38] be considered now to to Miss Richardson point when I talked to her earlier we're hoping that all of this that if there's behaviors or something that this has been triggered before but I think we all realize that sometimes we have to put things in policy that made should should be happening anyway so that's why I wanted to put that in for special for special education children I also want there to be for everybody if that doesn't work and they you know they are

[01:00:18] rescinded that they do have an appeal to the school board to your the first point Ms. Mansfield in addition to the warning letter the current proposed language states that prior to rescission principal shall provide notice to the student and family and afford the student and family opportunity to address concerns including opportunity to meet with school administration IEP 504 case manager if applicable and school counselor so your do I understand that you want that to be mandatory rather than discretionary on the part of the

[01:00:55] student and family thank you for bringing it up so parents and students of gen ed students will be offered the opportunity to meet with a school administration and school counselor I would get rid of the IEP 504 case manager there because the next line that's what I would say if a student with disabilities receives a warning letter for the principal then an IEP meeting must be convened or 504 so that warning letter would trigger something for a student with disabilities you can have a meeting but the difference between a meeting and an IEP team 504 meeting is that you have added protections for

[01:01:33] your student with disabilities there's a prior written notice there's you know there's reporting there's all the rest of that that doesn't necessarily happen with that other meeting Ms. LaBelle if I could kind of clarify what I think Ms.

[01:02:00] Mansfield saying is that if you have an IEP or a 504 and there is a behavior issue I think that that needs to be put down underneath as in the place where she says because that will trigger things like taking a look at the behavior plan does he have one what kind of things has happened before have you had a what is it called the meeting no not not that the meeting where they see if it's the function a manifestation determination manifestation meeting all

[01:02:39] of those things are triggered once you have the IEP and 504 and I think it's more appropriate to get it afterwards so that you can sit down and meet with the people who truly are going to be making the decision so is that what you're thinking this means clarifying it by saying there are other things that they need to be looked at yeah I mean I think that we ideally all of that would have been done before we're at this position of a warning letter but just in

[01:03:14] case it wasn't. If this warning letter goes out there needs to be a trigger that you have to look for this for this to see if they need more supports. Consider if they need more supports or resources for your IEP or 504 students. So I I've been trying to put into words why this is giving me some pause and I I think what I've arrived at is concern about how much time that would take if there is a situation where the principals feel like it's appropriate to rescind special permission

[01:03:53] for a student that the if we impose a requirement that there must be an IEP meeting prior to such rescission. My own experience going through this process with with my student in LCPS and to Ms. Mansfield's point about the there has to be prior written notice.

[01:04:22] there has to be a meeting scheduled there have to be certain individuals present at that meeting. That can take quite a bit of time and I that does give me I'm I'm a little reluctant to support a requirement for that because of my concern that that would the limitations that that would result in for the principals who feel that rescission is appropriate.

[01:04:56] Thank you Miss Donahue for that. So, so far the discussion has been that we would like certain considerations for students eligible under IDEA and ADA after the warning letter.

[01:05:11] So after the warning letter, our current process is there's two additional letters that would be sent, two additional opportunities for the families coming together with the school based teams to talk about how can we improve this situation.

[01:05:26] I think, because IDEA particularly is guided by federal law and state regulations, I don't believe that the policy can require an IEP meeting. But we as staff can work on language that indicates after the warning letter for students eligible, these things must be considered prior to moving forward with a recommendation to rescind the special permission.

[01:05:58] also important for the committee to understand so far we haven't had any recensions we have principals that reach out and process concerns with us and we problem-solve with them but it has never resulted in a recension Thank You Ms. Richardson I I do I like the idea of specifying appropriate considerations although my instinct would be to say that that sounds like it might be more

[01:06:29] of an operational language appropriate for regulation so I guess we could ask an attorney if that if we can't trigger something because I do think there are other things that we that do trigger it and I think that you do have to look specifically and and there are expedited IEP meetings they might not

[01:07:05] say that there are but there are and if it's child is having a problem and we have two more warning letters that can go I would like for them to have an IEP meeting to determine and that isn't that is a protection for a special education student and particularly with a special education student who has who's part of their like emotional disability or something like that.

[01:07:36] So I hear what you're saying but I don't know that I would like it in regulations because it is a kind of a protection for a student and I think the protection should be in policy.

[01:07:54] just like the here you know here where we're where I'm also saying on 246 that they should have an appeal of administrative decisions at first it said we said not appealable but I think that it should be appealable that's a protection here that needs to be in policy and not in regulation.

[01:08:17] That's my thoughts. Ms. Richardson or Mr. Dulleson can you speak to to the appealable issue. was not aware that I don't recall the rescissions decisions to rescind special permission if they were previously appealable under policy 2350 if you are aware of why when that was changed and why so it was changed during your tenure

[01:08:51] here and I believe the reason being was because we have so few that the process is really enumerated in the regulation on what schools and I can be very specific like there was a situation today where we did receive an inquiry about what needed to happen in order to rescind special permission and there is a checklist that we have and those before even gets to my desk Miss Carpenter make sure and is communicating with administration at the school administrator so an assistant principal or a principal about the

[01:09:28] process so it is a very well outlined and and followed process but I believe I can count on one hand the number that we had during the 24 25 school year and we do not take them lightly traditionally what we have done is we invite the family into this building and I meet with them or Miss Richardson and I meet with them together to determine you know what the school has done and what the catalyst for this request from the school might be and sometimes it is it's the students like yeah I'm not doing what I need to do so other times it's

[01:10:08] maybe this is not a good fit for you and it is time for you to return back to your your base school your home school so I feel like the reason that you all decided to take the to add that it's not appealable out is because it was one less appeals process that the board had to go through and because we have so few I believe if you could look back to our work sessions over a year ago we provided that that data to you and it was like five to maybe less than ten per year I know and that and that's even smaller now because the youth you've

[01:10:47] sort of constrained the process a little bit you've gotten to you know really having kids attend their home or their base schools instead of applying for special commission so I feel like that was the reason that we said it was not appealable the reminder Miss LaBelle your thoughts about Ms. Mansfield's proposed amendments to this section I would like to see a specificity and

[01:11:21] encouragement since we cannot require them to take the IEP meeting option whatever but at least remind them that they do have that option to come in for an IEP meeting whether we put it gives me in policy that if we're just reminding them that it's an option I think that in policy is a better place but if we want to do something more specific and enumerate the things that

[01:11:54] they have that would then be in regulations I could ask Ms. Mansfield what are the because we have the language in here already indicating opportunity to have a meeting with school staff including IEP or 504 case manager and you pointed out but the difference is if it is an official IEP meeting there are different requirements

[01:12:32] protections etc. Are there particular aspects of the difference between an official IEP meeting that you're particularly concerned about? One you can record an IEP team meeting. Two you can bring your advocate you can't do that here with these meetings and you don't get a prior written notice so there's no real account of you know that you discussed or considered other accommodations or

[01:13:11] considered other you know resources or supports or whatever and that's my concern now I realize we don't have a lot of them but that doesn't mean we won't have any and like I told Ms. Richardson today as well we have a good team now there's going to be a time when I'll be very sad when if Miss Richardson like retires but I think that we have to think you know five six years down the line

[01:13:44] I agree completely have to have to make policies sometimes on assuming worst case scenarios at all times if I could ask Cheryl Richardson would there be bar to if we wanted to add into this where it says parents and students will be offered the opportunity to meet with school administration IEP 504 case manager if applicable as school counselor would there be a bar that would prohibit us from allowing if this involves a special ed student to have an advocate and be

[01:14:24] able to record such meetings? Thank you Ms. Donahue. Not that I'm aware of I would need to check into more before I would say for sure one way or the other but nothing that comes to mind. The problem with that may be that then you might have special education parents who are saying, well, you're doing it for this.

[01:14:50] I can have my advocate, and I can have my audio for this. Why can't I have it when I'm talking with the principal, or why can't I have it when I'm doing, when I have my teacher meeting or all the rest of it?

[01:15:07] So I just, that's why I don't, I'm a little afraid of opening that up. Sure how to advise you Ms. Richardson Ms. Tedra Richardson.

[01:15:34] I'm I'm I'm still kind of on the fence about the requiring an IEP meeting prior to rescinding special permission.

[01:15:50] So I'm not sure how to proceed then. It appears that my colleagues are in favor of adding that language. We need to officially vote on it or ask you Could you prepare some options for advice language?

[01:16:13] I think staff would like the opportunity to consult with not just LCPS legal counsel, but outside legal counsel as well, because currently under the IDEA and SPED regulations, you could request an IEP meeting. If we don't feel the need to convene a team, we issue you prior written notice to refuse that action.

[01:16:34] So therefore, I don't know that the policy could actually dictate that it's required. So I'm happy to follow up on that and then come on Tuesday with some draft language or at least some guidance for the full board to consider. - Thank you Ms. Richardson.

[01:16:50] Ms. Mansfield. - I have a negotiation. So if we can't do that can we put in language that so parents and students will be offered the opportunity to meet with school administration request an IEP team an IEP you can also put offered the opportunity to meet with school administration IEP 504's case manager if applicable request and school council school counselor I want to put like or request an IEP team meeting 504 meeting.

[01:17:28] Does that make any sense. That's appropriate yes. Okay. They know they have that they can ask and they really can ask for at any time. I would hope that if we have this issue that we wouldn't be sending them a prior written notice saying no we're not going to meet with you.

[01:17:45] putting that out there so then my second request would be the that it is appealable under for it under policy 2350 would not be opposed to adding or request IEP being we're adding back though is it we're changing it to is appealable Miss LaBelle agreed I will be satisfied with that language did you

[01:18:23] have any other proposed amendments miss manfield no ma'am miss LaBelle did you have any proposed amendments I have no I'm good with it with all the amendments that we have in it to this moment Ms. Richardson and Mr. Dolson do you feel like you have sufficient clarity

[01:18:58] from us such that if we were to vote that you are prepared to take next steps we are always prepared to take next steps I think no we we we have good we have a great team and we have notes that we can all speak to and write from so I think we're good to go and thank you to everyone who has stuck around long after this meeting was

[01:19:34] supposed to have been done I am going to make the motion that we approve the proposed provisions to policy 8155 school assignment with the amended and or suggested language changes that we have discussed in this meeting that we forward that to the full board for its consideration as an information item is there a second oh I saw Miss LaBelle's hand first Miss LaBelle I second the motion motion has been properly moved and seconded I'm going to hope that we don't need to have any more discussion on that.

[01:20:15] All those in favor please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. That motion passes unanimously. Ms. Richardson and Mr. Dolson look forward to discussing this again in the very near future with the full board. We.

[01:20:31] This is not. We have to we have to we have to. Yes we can. It's just 5:50 just. Just do the info come on. It's beautiful please. Seeing as it is 5:55 and our meeting was supposed to have ended at 5:30 is are my colleagues willing and able to stay for a few more minutes.

[01:21:02] Is staff willing and able to stay for a few more minutes. Then we'll at least briefly address item number five on our agenda information item new proposed policy 5340 safe and supportive removal of students Ms. Richardson.

[01:21:28] - Thank you, Chair Donohue. So just a reminder, the basis of this new policy, the circumstances in the educational setting can sometimes require that we safely and in a supportive manner remove students in a way that does not constitute seclusion.

[01:21:49] The full board as well as members of this committee in past times have received some parent outreach with allegations of seclusion, which we discussed. Those allegations were fully investigated and found not to be incidences of seclusion and that is what led this committee to make a recommendation for staff to draft this new policy.

[01:22:13] As a reminder, seclusion is a prohibited practice in LCPS per policy 5345, restraint and seclusion. And so this new policy is before you at your request and the request of SEAC. So, section A, the purpose, just simply stating that we are committed to making sure that our learning environments across LCPS are safe, supportive, and inclusive.

[01:22:40] This policy will, it goes on to establish the guidelines in which there are circumstances that may prevent themselves outside of restraint as defined by policy 5345.

[01:22:55] so the goal is to protect the dignity and safety and well-being of all students and staff while maintaining environments that are supportive for positive learning outcomes okay staff did find it necessary to work through some definitions for clarity to help that really connect with our administrators and school-based staff so you will see we have six definitions we define what a safe and supportive removal is it is a temporary responsive removal of a student from the instructional

[01:23:31] setting to a designated supportive area for the purpose of ds de-escalation or regulation then certainly we still we're going to be serving students that have accommodations either in their ieps or their 504 plans those are predetermined opportunities so teams have been thoughtful to think about and talk about impact of disability and then how might we accommodate these things when they arise number three the designated areas they're clearly identified spaces within the school building where students may take a break

[01:24:07] under supervision these areas remain unlocked and free from hazards provide a safe and calm environment and shall not be used for disciplinary isolation we then go on to explain isolation it's the separation of a student from their peers in a supervised setting for a limited period of time isolation does not constitute seclusion then we define exclusion that is the removal of a

[01:24:42] student from the school environment for a specified period of time so isolation is limited exclusion is specified this also does not constitute seclusion then we define seclusion which is the involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room or area from which the student is physically prevented from leaving and then of course we remind staff that seclusion is a prohibited practice in LCPS conditions for use safe and supportive removal might be used if a student requires a scheduled

[01:25:20] or agreed-upon break so this could be for any student not just students eligible under the IDEA or ADA they may begin to demonstrate a need within the classroom for de-escalation or self-regulation or when the instructional setting temporarily prevents the student from maintaining a state of regulation and being able to access learning isolation and exclusion may only be used as a last resort and in accordance with this policy when other de-escalation or intervention strategies have not been successful in maintaining safety. All

[01:25:59] actions must prioritize the student's dignity, safety, and emotional well-being. Expectations for our staff members across LCPS with professional learning. All staff shall receive annual training on the appropriate use of safe and supportive removal, isolation, and exclusion. Training will include de escalation techniques, trauma-informed practices, alternative strategies, and the potential

[01:26:30] psychological and emotional impact of removal, isolation, or exclusion on students. Staff will also be trained in the legal and ethical considerations associated with these practices. Documentation requirements. Any instance of safe and supportive removal, isolation, or exclusion must be documented in the student's record.

[01:27:00] Documentation must include the date, time, duration, and reason for the action, a description of the events leading to the removal, and any interventions attempted prior to the action.

[01:27:18] Documentation must also include a record of communication with the student's parents or guardians regarding the incident. Section F is the requirement for parent and guardian notification. Parents and guardians must be notified within 24 hours if their child has been removed, isolated, or excluded from the educational setting, including when the removal or break is planned as a part of the student's instructional day.

[01:27:52] We should be collecting data, okay? Notification must include the reason for the removal, isolation or exclusion, the duration, the strategies or steps taken to address the student's needs during and after the action.

[01:28:07] A meeting with the parent or guardian should be scheduled as appropriate to discuss the incident and any additional supports or interventions needed. Section G. Supervision.

[01:28:25] During any safe and supportive removal, isolation, or exclusion, students must remain under continuous visual supervision by trained staff. Designated areas must be safe, developmentally appropriate, and designed to support calming and self-regulation.

[01:28:47] Staff are responsible for supporting student re-entry into the learning environment in a timely and positive manner. Section H, we want to make sure that we're looking at these instances and debriefing with our staff to make sure we are continually improving our practices.

[01:29:07] So the use of safe and supportive removal, isolation, and exclusion will be reviewed regularly by school and division-level administration to ensure compliance with this policy.

[01:29:22] will be collected analyzed and reviewed at least annually to identify patterns or trends monitor equity in practice and inform professional learning and future policy revisions section I accountability the superintendent or designee shall develop the professional learning resources consistent with this policy school administrators are responsible for ensuring consistent

[01:29:53] implementation across schools and for monitoring staff compliance thank you Ms. Richardson as many people are aware we spent a lot of time going through policy 5 345 related to restraint and seclusion and in our many conversations in this committee in my one-on-one conversations with you in my

[01:30:27] conversations with concerned community members we identified a gap because there were a number of reported concerns from the community that did not seem to fall squarely under the definition of restraint and seclusion as defined in policy 5 345 and that's something that I and my colleagues have felt strongly about addressing that gap I am extremely impressed and very grateful with the

[01:31:04] thoroughness of this proposal and the precision of the definitions and the way that the way that it covers many of the areas of concern that have been raised before by members of the community I have a couple of questions slash thoughts For Part D expectations for professional learning.

[01:31:34] I I love what's here. I do wonder if it is possible to add something related to the mental health of our staff when they're in these situations. The for Part E the documentation requirements.

[01:31:58] We state that these things must be documented in the student's record I initially wrote a note to myself to say well when how quickly after an incident does this need to be documented which maybe is not necessary to address because section F requires 24 hour notice to the to the parent or guardian.

[01:32:21] So and if the documentation right the documentation must must include the record of communication with the student's parent or guardian. So I think that covers that thought that I had. And then for Section H review and monitoring is there.

[01:32:44] Do you think there would be any way to share data or summaries of data with the public that would not jeopardize medical HIPAA FERPA situations of our students.

[01:33:01] Yeah when drafting that piece of the policy Section H we were thinking that we would report this data out concurrently we usually do restraint and seclusion February or March so we would follow that same cadence we would break it down we wouldn't identify schools but we would give you grade level like levels elementary middle and high and then we would break it out removal isolation exclusion I I would like to consider adding a sentence to section H that's that says data will be collected analyzed

[01:33:37] and reviewed something along the lines of this data will be will be reported to the board or made public to the fullest extent practicable in compliance with other legal obligations so those are my thoughts also well done on how quickly

[01:34:06] you went through that so obviously I had an emotional reaction because this has but it's a big deal before you get to seclusion or as you know this is where the real work happens and we were missing it and we were missing it for a lot of our kids not on purpose necessarily it just wasn't a part of it and so then miscommunication happens and people say you have

[01:34:43] lack of transparency and all the rest of it and the only notes I have is that I'm sure in regulation you're going to look at like what limited period of time is going to be like on page on line 30 and specified period of time I think those are things that you know you're talking about training and it's part of it what's appropriate and you're not going to have a kid in there for I think there's legal issues too but you're not going to have a kid in there for like you know an hour or whatever that's not

[01:35:21] going to be part of this the expectation for professional learning I might put in evidence based instruction somewhere in there you have training will include de-escalation techniques but I think it's always a good idea and I know you already do it anyway with MANT training and Ukeru training will include I think mostly MANT in this case but evidence based de-escalation you know evidence-based de-escalation techniques.

[01:35:53] I think you're you understand where I'm getting at from that. So thank you and rolling off the board. This is a great idea. I love it. Love the new proposed policy.

[01:36:22] I would like us to please oh she's got Kleenex. Ms. Richardson can we please send this out for review and and then have it come back to us as an action item.

[01:36:37] Absolutely so send it out for review with the proposed revisions so certainly on the definition section number four limited period of time for isolation specified period of time for exclusion those are implementation so that would be in regulation but add the evidence-based to Section D right and then also an aspect of mental health for staff and then for Section H add the annual reporting to the school board.

[01:37:17] Thank you and with that we will move on to item number six. New business. Is there any new business. No then we will move on to item number seven which is adjourn. Adjournment our next meeting is currently scheduled to be Thursday December 18th which is the evening before the last day at LCPS before the winter break.

[01:37:45] Chair Mansfield's last meeting with us. so December 18th 2025 at 4:30 when it will already be dark when we start thank you all for coming and get home safely

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coraggio Consulting · aguyonx.com