Posts
Notes from Board of Education Work Session, 5/23/22
The Board of Education Work Session on Monday, May 23, 2022 was streamed live on ccboe.com and aired live on Comcast Channel 96 and Verizon FiOs Channel 12. The meeting will be re-broadcast on Comcast Channel 96, Verizon FIOS Channel 12 and is available via webstream at http://www.ccboe.com/ . CCPS also will post the meeting on its YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/ccpsmd.To view the full agenda and the various reports, please visit BoardDocs .
The below notes are my personal notes and are not intended to be all-inclusive or official minutes for the Board of Education meetings and are provided as a request from my supporters and the general public in a personal effort to be more transparent. Although I have diligently tried to make these notes as unbiased and accurate as possible, I am only human and do make mistakes. Individual names are spelled to the best of my ability.
Executive session – 4:30 p.m.
Call to order – 6 p.m.
Public forum - No one signed up to speak
Educational Facilities Master Plan
- Lukas - projected enrollment; includes all planned developments? YES
- 1314
- 3430
- 3533.1
- 5127
- 6412.4
- Hancock - against the phrase objection is upheld
- Lukas - practice and process is already in place
- 6425
- 6462
- 9350
- 8160
Action item
Motion to pass the Eligibility Policy 6431 by Herd; Second by Brown
- Hancock - cannot support this as written with unlimited absences and suspensions; if amended to take those out I could support.
- Abell - cannot support this as written with absences and failing grades
- Herd - understand fellow board members; spoken to a lot of people, stakeholders. We are talking about ALL extracurricular activities not just sports.
- Brown - agree with Mr. Herd, a way for kids to connect to school.
- McGraw - willing to compromise on some of the areas; the attendance one and then decided I couldn't waive for support of the underserved population
- Brown - Not all parents write a note, some parents don't do anything and its up to the student.
- Lukas - just because they are eligible doesn't mean the will participate. I believe coming down to a 2,0 but not the failing grades.
Motion to Amend the Eligibility Policy 6431 by Hancock; Second by Abell
Amend to only change 2.25 to 2.0
- Herd - cannot support the amendment. We are doing students a great disservice.
Vote for the amendment
Yes = Abell, Hancock; , No = Brown, Herd, Lukas, McGraw, Wilson; Absent - Battle-Lockhart
Vote for the original motion
Yes = Brown, Herd, McGraw, Wilson, No = Abell, Hancock, Lukas; Absent - Battle-Lockhart
(FAILS, need 5 votes)
- Lukas - What about giving all 9th graders a free pass for the whole year.
- Herd - If you are above the threshold extracurricular is good but if you are below the threshold then extracurricular activities are detrimental. If that's true we shouldn't allow any freshmen to participate in extracurriculars at all. Logic supports the staff recommendations.
- Lukas - doesn't enhance them but it is opportunity. It's a benefit that should be earned. Everyone's line in the sand is different based on perspective.
- Wilson - willing to go to 2.0, no failing grades in required courses, no more than 5 absences
- Navarro - Herd made point of absences and coaches don't allow them to participate; other systems do allow all ninth graders to be eligible.
- Lukas - How many students became ineligible this year?
- McGraw - one F will not hurt the high achievers, it will only help those already near 2.25 or 2.0. Extracurricular activities should NOT have to be earned. Not everyone is able to score high. Equity is making sure every child has what they need to be effective.
- Brown - Extracurricular activity should be available to everyone and not earned.
- Herd - trying to come up with a solution. Activities is a hook to get more students engaged. What about a graduated affect. Also, we lost ground due to COVID. What if we temporarily lower the bar.
- Lukas - could go to 2.0 and take out the attendance requirement. Would talk about waiving one failing grade but would still need to maintain the failing grade,
- Wilson - clarifying, Lukas if ok with 2.0 and no attendance requirement.
- Abell - cannot give up the attendance requirement. If you can make it to practice you can make it to class. The attendance requirement doesn't even include excused absences.
- Brown - What are we afraid of losing with this policy
- Lukas - only for myself, participate with no requirement but academically they are failing.
- Abell - If you remove the attendance requirement you also remove the suspension. Someone could still be suspended and participate as written. And we are still only talking unexcused absences; not excused.
- Hancock - I respect everyone's opinion. Still have a problem with attendance. Not like that when you go to work. It's not setting them up for reality. We can't coddle too much.
- Abell - not in policy or rules about the attendance; a coach will play them if needed and the policy is not in place.
- Wilson - 2.0, no more than one F and no unexcused absences
- McGraw - wasnt aware of the suspension aspect. I can compromise on the attendance. Can do 2.0 and one F.
Motion to Amend the Eligibility Policy 6431 by Wilson; Second by Brown
Amend to change 2.25 to 2.0, no more than one F, attendance requirement remains
- Lukas - Can do the 2.0 but not the F.
- Abell - cannot waiver on the F or the attendance
- Hancock - i dont want to support it but i can
Vote for the amendment
Yes = Brown, Hancock, McGraw, Wilson; , No = Abell, Herd, Lukas; Absent - Battle-Lockhart
Motion to Amend the Eligibility Policy 6431 by Lukas; Second by Herd
Amend to change 2.25 to 2.0, no F's, attendance requirement is dropped
Vote for the amendment
Yes = Herd, Lukas, Wilson; , No = Abell, Brown, Hancock, McGraw; Absent - Battle-Lockhart
Motion to pass the T.C. Martin Elementary Renovation Contract by Abell; Second by Hancock
Yes = Abell, Brown, Hancock, Lukas, McGraw, Wilson; Absent - Battle-Lockhart
Adjournment
