Board of Education: Board Policy Meeting

The Berkeley Unified School District intends to provide reasonable accommodations in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If a special accommodation is desired, please call the Superintendent’s Office 48 hours prior to the meeting at 510-644-6206

El Distrito Escolar Unificado de Berkeley tiene la intención de proporcionar adaptaciones especiales en conformidad con el Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Ley de Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990). Si usted desea una adaptación especial, por favor comuníquese con el personal de la Oficina del Superintendente 48 horas antes de la reunión al 510-644-6206.

Josh Daniels, Chair
Ty Alper, Director

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

1. Call to Order/Approve Agenda
2. Public Comment
3. Approve Board Policy Meeting Minutes for March 8 & March 25 - Action
4. Student Discipline – Discussion (30 min)
5. BUSDs Response to Community-Focused Threats – Discussion (30 min)
6. BP/AR/E 7310 – Discussion (10 min)
7. Recess Restriction – Action (10 min)
8. Update Board Policy Calendar – Action

Board Policy Subcommittee Minutes
Room 126
March 8, 2016
3:00 - 4:30pm
___________________________________________________________________________________

Director Daniels called the Policy Subcommittee Meeting to order at 3:05pm.

Roll Call
Josh Daniels, Chair – Present
Ty Alper, Director – Present
Donald Evans, Superintendent – Present
Lyz Chairez, Recorder – Present

Approval of Agenda
Motion to approve agenda as is:
Alper/Daniels and unanimously approved 2-0 

Public Comment 

Lilly Chen said that her office is interested in participating in the development of student discipline/school climate policies. She hopes the result is a comprehensive plan. This is a great first step

Cory, An East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) representative, echoed Chen’s comments. She expressed support in the District’s efforts in developing this policy. 

BP 7310: Naming Facilities

The committee reviewed the AR and agreed on language. 

Motion to approve amendments to BP 7310, the new AR and E:
Daniels/Alper and unanimously approved 2-0.

BP/AR 1312.3: Uniform Complaint Procedures

Alper explained that the goal is to undo the restrictions set by UCP around the use of restorative justice (RJ). 

Daniels asked whether we anticipate to employ RJ in all discipline cases.

Alper responded that RJ would apply to any case at the discretion of staff.

Daniels asked when would we have an articulated set of standards that are memorialized in the policy.

Craig said that it could i. go into the policy currently being developed or ii. it could be part of RJ practices. 

Alper proposed that the Superintendent draft an AR for an interim RJ practices.

Daniels said he would feel more comfortable moving forward if standards can be developed by fall

Motion to approve BP/AR 1312.3 as currently proposed with the understanding that the Board would see standards in the fall:
Alper/Daniels and unanimously approved 2-0.

District-Police Interaction

Alper said there are two parts to this item:
1. Board policy
2. MOU with BPD

Alper explained that he used Pasadena and Oakland’s MOU. 

Craig highlighted the specificity of Oakland’s.

Superintendent Evans raised a question around how the agreement between OUSD and OPD was determined.

Cory commented on Oakland’s policy, saying that the lack of specificity does not necessarily translate into action. She found much of it to be vague. She would like to see this policy address when district staff bring/notify police voluntarily. She added that a good policy should not just address summoning police intervention, but should explicitly state that police should not be contacted.

Craig explained that under BUSDs current protocol, in a case where a student is found to be in possession of marijuana, for instance, BPD does not require the student’s name; they just destroy the drugs.

Chen stated that communication with POs should also be specifically outlined as they are required to collaborate with police and judges.

Cory said there should be a distinction between providing information v. volunteering information.

Chen echoed Cory’s remarks with regards to specificity. She reiterated that our Policy should specifically delineate what exactly should happen.

Daniels said he would like the BP to include structure to direct staff to enter into an MOU, identify rules of communication with current SRO, and establish what we’re required to do by law. He suggested that we seek opinion from the DA to get a sense of differences of opinions around that. In a case where the police are pursuing a suspect, for instance, they can come on campus despite the policy. What provision do we have under the law to prohibit a BPD officer from coming on campus for any reason? Daniels added that it would be helpful to have an accurate description of limits, under the law, of what we are allowed to establish.

He suggested that the MOU secure some kind of agreement to require a confidential write-up as justification for police-student interaction. This will allow us to identify and address any pattern of interaction without real justification.

Superintendent Evans clarified that we cannot stop law enforcement from doing what they’re supposed to do, but we can weigh in on how they do it—that is the purpose of the MOU.

Alper suggested that we focus on the policy first and then the MOU.

Daniels said he agreed and added that the meat, if anything, would be in the MOU. He suggested that our policy lay out:

• when we will provide information to BPD, as required by law
• protocol for turning over evidence/contraband
• protocol for communicating with police and probation officers
• directing staff to enter into an MOU

Daniels said that adding anything more would mean asking to set expectations that would run into conflict with police behavior. Absent extenuating circumstances, he added, are not clearly defined. What is true in the moment is different from what is true two days later. Because we can go back and forth with BPD so much, Daniels suggested the MOU should focus more on how we learn from our experiences rather than on how police intervene. 

Cory shared that in her experience she has seen student-police interaction be initiated by the school, not the police. A policy will help control these interactions.

Alper asked what the role of the SRO is in case of investigations/arrests.

Craig responded that there have been instances when the SRO has conducted arrest. 

Update Board Policy Calendar 

Policies to consider at the next policy meeting on March 25:
Board Bylaws 9321-9321.1 (30 min)

District interaction with law enforcement (30 min)

Motion to approve policy calendar as amended:
Daniels/Alper and unanimously approved 2-0.

Meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

Board Policy Subcommittee Minutes
Room 126
March 25, 2016
3:00 -4:30pm

Director Daniels called the Policy Subcommittee Meeting to order at 3:00pm.

Roll Call
Josh Daniels, Chair – Present
Ty Alper, Director – Present
Donald Evans, Superintendent – Present
Lyz Chairez, Recorder – Present

Approval of Agenda
Motion to approve agenda as amended:
Daniels/Alper and unanimously 2-0.

Public Comment

A BHS teacher commented on the current discipline policy with respect to expulsion. He criticized the zero tolerance approach and stressed that a policy with more options is necessary. He would like clear guidelines on what kind of information to share with attorneys and others involved in the process. 

Approval of Board Policy Meeting Minutes for Jan 29, Feb 9, and Feb 26, 2016

Motion to approve minutes:
Daniels/Alper and approved unanimously 2-0

Board Bylaws 9321-0321.1

Daniels explained that he based changes on the former consultant’s. He adopted some, but not all.

Alper proposed some changes to the language. With respect to how the law requires us to report out on a student discipline matter.

The committee tabled this item and gave direction to Daniels to bring back language on:

1. Disclosing the cause of an expulsion
2. Reporting out changes to staff recommendations of personnel and student matters. 

Board Policy: Interaction with Law Enforcement

Alper said that he and Dr. Craig drafter this policy based on some comments made at previous policy meetings and other district policies. This is a first reading to get feedback from the participants.

The policy committee went through the policy section by section. The second section outlines what kind of offenses need to be reported.

Craig clarified that certain offenses need to be reported to law enforcement, but disclosing the student’s name is not required. Craig suggested that we list the specific offenses.

Campbell expressed being grateful that this committee has taken this policy on. With respect to teachers not being able to report student behavior to law enforcement, she would like to know how do teachers reconcile their rights as employees and individuals in an instance where they are threatened or harmed by a student.

Daniels said we would flag this portion. 

The next section addresses arrest of a student on campus:

Participants discussed whether or not the parent should be notified of an arrest that BPD plans to make and what actions should follow when law enforcement inquires about a student’s whereabouts

Craig said we should forego the notification piece in a case where there is an eminent threat to safety.

This item will be revisited at a subsequent meeting. 

Update Board Policy Calendar

Policies to consider at the next meeting on April 8:
Recess Restriction
Response to community focused threats
Board Bylaws 9321-9321.1
Student Discipline

Daniels excused himself at 4:03pm. 

Meeting adjourned at  4:05

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

TO: Policy Subcommittee
FROM: Ty Alper and Susan Craig
DATE: April 8, 2016
SUBJECT: BP re Expulsions

Attached is a first draft policy governing expulsions. There is more work to be done on it, and an AR to be drafted as well, but it is a first draft for discussion at the April 8 meeting. 

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:                Policy Committee
FROM:           Josh Daniels, Dr. Donald Evans, and Susan Craig
DATE:            April 8, 2016
SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding Administrative Regulation for Threats towards Groups

We have identified a need to establish District-wide procedures for communicating information to students, families, staff, and community members regarding threats to groups.  We are proposing that an Administrative Regulation be created for this purpose.

Background Information
 In November 2015, a disturbing message that included explicit, racist threats towards African Americans was found on a computer in the library at BHS.  While BHS administration took immediate steps to investigate, quickly determined the student responsible for the threats, and took prompt steps to notify law enforcement, issue disciplinary consequences, and ensure that no one’s safety was in immediate jeopardy, the incident had a serious impact on the sense of safety of African American students, families, and community members.

While Education Code and Penal Code guide a school’s responses involving student discipline matters, criminal activity and safety threats that are under the school’s jurisdiction, the codes do not provide guidance for communicating information to the community regarding threats that have been made towards groups.

Board Policy for Crisis Response and Safety Plans: The District has an existing Policy 3516 for an Emergencies and Disaster Preparedness Plan (see attached).

BUSD’s District-level Emergency Operations Plan, which was last updated five years ago, serves as a guide for responding to emergencies associated with natural disasters, human-caused emergencies, technological incidents, and pandemic influenza.

Each BUSD school has a school safety plan (see attached example), which is updated annually. The safety plans include general emergency procedures and directions for dealing with specific incidents, including intruders, shootings, hostage situations, and hate-motivated behavior. The procedures for responding to hate-motivated behavior include immediately addressing the problem, disseminating information to staff, and following up on the victim’s and perpetrator’s needs. The District’s EOP and the school safety plans do not include procedures for communicating with the community regarding threats to groups.

The following article references response to incidents that occurred in Cincinnati involving police: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/07/458828493/former-cincinnati-chief-recalls-challenges-of-police-reform

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

TO: Policy Committee
FROM: Susan Craig
DATE: April 8, 2016
SUBJECT:   Recess Restriction Policy Follow-up to Recess Restriction Report and Board Discussion on March 23, 2016

At the March 23, 2016 Board meeting, the Board requested that District staff to review the original language in the policy and the video from the November 19, 2014 Board discussion and adoption of the policy, with regard to the language that the Board approved related to assigning recess restriction to students with IEPs or 504 plans, and make corrections as needed to align the language with what was approved by the Board.

Background Information:
Item #8 in the Recess Restriction Policy currently reads as follows: “Recess participation may not be restricted for students where such a consequence is explicitly prohibited by a student’s IEP or 504 plan.”

At the November 19, 2014 Board meeting (minute 50 in the video), the Board approved an amendment to the language for Item #8 as follows: “Recess participation may not be restricted for students where such a consequence is inconsistent with a student’s learning goals and accommodations reflected in an IEP or 504.” At the Board meeting, BUSD’s Special Education Director, Lisa Graham, expressed concerns that the amended language may be discriminatory. The Board directed staff to review the adopted language with legal counsel, and bring any recommended changes back to the Board for approval. This step was never completed.

In an e-mail from Lisa Graham dated January 12, 2015, the following language for Item #8 was recommended, after consulting with legal counsel: “Recess restriction for students with exceptional needs must be implemented consistent with the educational goals and accommodations in their IEP, 504 plan, or individualized Positive Behavior Intervention Plan. Recess restriction should not be imposed for behavior, actions, or incomplete work that are a result of a child’s disability.”

Recommended Next Steps:
District staff recommends that the recommended updated provided by Lisa Graham be brought forward to the Board at an upcoming Board meeting for consideration and approval.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO: Policy Subcommittee
FROM: Ty Alper 
DATE: April 8, 2016
SUBJECT: BP/AR Naming Facilities

Attached is the version of BP 7310 that is ready for publication. Pursuant to the vote and direction of the Board at the March 23, 2016 Board meeting, I added a provision that allows for the naming of a school after any "entity" which could be an inanimate object, a social movement, or anything else the Board deems appropriate.

I further noted in the AR where the Superintendent needs to decide whether to change the language of the AR with respect to the percentage of a school community that must sign a petition in order to trigger District review of a name. My understanding is that Dr. Evans plans to discuss this with his cabinet and then make a decision so that we can publish and disseminate both the BP and AR in the near future.