COLUMBUS, Ind. — The Bartholomew Consolidated School Corp. board has approved a number of policy updates, despite opposition from some members of the board and the public.
The school board voted Monday to approve the policies as presented with one change to a section on board members’ visits to schools. The vote was split 3-2, with board members Logan Schulz and Jason Major voting against the action. Todd Grimes, Dale Nowlin and Rich Stenner voted in favor. Nicole Wheeldon and Pat Bryant were absent.
“Two weeks ago, we came in here, and we voted to push everything out,” said Major. “There were four of us that agreed that we should do that. I hope that you look at what I had sent, plus the questions that you have, and that you have gotten all your answers in the last two weeks. I don’t think I have.”
An overview of the changes was initially presented at a previous board meeting in January. Superintendent Jim Roberts explained at the time that the school corporation has a contract with the education consulting firm Neola that helps them update policies based on changes in state and federal legislation, as well as changes in case law.
On April 24, the board voted 4-2 to delay voting on the proposed policy updates after hearing confusion and opposition from members of the public about the changes. Grimes, Stenner, Major and Bryant voted in favor of the delay, while Wheeldon and Nowlin voted against it. Schulz was absent at that time.
During the time for public comment at Monday’s meeting, 11 individuals offered their opinions on the policy revisions.
Nine of the speakers asked for the board to approve the policies as written, including a retired BCSC teacher and community leaders such as Community Education Coalition CEO Kathy Oren. These individuals generally stated that the proposed policies were appropriate for implementation and have their basis in legal requirements from statutes and case law.
They also felt that the school board had spent enough time deliberating over the policies and should avoid further delay in order to focus on more important matters.
Two speakers were opposed to the policies.
David Vincent, who ran for the board’s District 1 seat in the fall but lost to Major, said he felt the current policies for staff members’ dress and grooming did not require any revisions. He also expressed a distrust of NEOLA.
Angie Grimes was concerned about the school visitor policies and pointed to another school corporation that also worked with NEOLA but came up with a visitor policy that she felt to be more appropriate.
Schulz expressed a similar view during the board’s deliberations, saying that has the option to choose between having a “fortress” mentality or a more collaborative mindset.
“I really want to see that school system that brings the community in to move our students forward,” he said. “And again, just like Ms. Grimes showed, for every policy that we’re recommending on legal statute, there is a much more open and much more welcoming version out there.”
Before the vote, Nowlin made a motion to amend the policy on school visitors, noting that he had gotten a lot of feedback that the proposed wording “doesn’t sound very inviting.”
“My proposal is to delete the first sentence, which states ‘Individual board members who are interested in visiting schools or classrooms on an unofficial basis shall make the appropriate arrangements with the superintendent,’” he said. “So I propose that we strike that sentence and replace it with, ‘Individual board members are welcome to visit BCSC schools, facilities and classrooms on an unofficial basis. A board member shall make the appropriate arrangements for such a visit with the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee.’”
Nowlin said he included the “designee” wording because, in the past, board members have notified assistant superintendents, in addition to Roberts, about visits.
The proposed amendment was approved unanimously.
Following the vote to amend, Major voiced a number of concerns about various policies included in the docket of updates, including a new set of policies on staff and student relations.
These policies prohibit sexual conduct and sexual relationships between BCSC employees and students.
Additionally, “inappropriate boundary invasions by a corporation employee into a student’s personal space and personal life” are also prohibited.
It was this portion of the policy that led to confusion from members of the public in April, as the board had the option to include a variety of examples of potential boundary invasions. There were several items on the list, including hugging, showing pornography to a student, and invading his or her privacy. Speakers said that, at one time, all of the examples were included in the policy. However, the approved version does not include the list.
Roberts said in April that this was due to feedback BCSC had received about how some of the actions, such as hugging, could be appropriate in certain situations. Rather than only list a few concrete things that fall under the category, school officials thought it would be best to stick with broad language prohibiting boundary invasions.
“We are worried about inappropriate behavior, period,” said Roberts.
Major, however, argued that it was best to provide a list of examples for the sake of clarity, detailing which behaviors he wanted to keep in the policy, add in, or tweak. He indicated that the appropriateness of some actions — such as providing a ride for a student — should hinge on parental approval.
Nowlin, on the other hand, replied, said that the danger of having a list is that some people might see it as “exhaustive.”
He added that while some behaviors on the list were definitely inappropriate, others depended on the specific situation, such as initiating or extending contact with a student outside of the school day for personal purposes. As an example, he said that there were at least two times in his teaching career where he made trips to visit terminally ill students in the hospital.
“It’s not black and white,” Grimes agreed. “There is a lot of gray area in there. And that’s why I feel it makes sense to take the examples out. If we have lots of examples with ‘this exception’ or ‘probably’, it defeats the purpose.”
Schulz, however, argued that this could be an issue if an accusation against a staff member is brought before the board, as they would not have explicit standards to refer to.
Another topic of some discussion from both members of the public and board members has been revised policies on dress and grooming for both staff and students.
A revised Policy 5511 on dress and grooming for students now states that the dress code “shall be upheld in a nondiscriminatory and uniform manner.”
According to a drafting note on the revisions, “Optional language has been added to state what is legally required with regard to enforcing the dress code in a nondiscriminatory/uniform manner and affirming a student’s right to dress in accordance with their gender identity (within the constraints of the adopted dress code) versus their birth gender. Implementation of such measures is required in accordance with the stated principles, whether they are in writing or not, in order to comply with Title IX.”
Similar language and notes were also added to staff policies on dress and grooming. Roberts said at a previous meeting that draft notes are not part of the policy itself but indicate the reason for the change and how it might affect the implementation of the policy.
In discussing dress and grooming, Major said he felt that guidelines should be better defined in order to be applied fairly.
He also expressed concern about BCSC’s policy on School Accountability, which includes information on the development of strategic and continuous school improvement and achievement plans.
These plans must be reviewed and revised each year, with input from a committee of people interested in the school, including administrators, teachers, parents and community and business leaders. Members are appointed by the principal, except for teacher representatives, who are appointed according to state statutes.
Major indicated that he wants it to be easier for community members to become involved in such a committee.
“I supported a CIC (Continuous Improvement Council) and I was the only parent out of 800-900 students that did that. There was no one else from the community,” he said. “So I didn’t get kicked out of the group, but I think we need to ensure that we’re allowing those that want to participate to be able to participate.”
Additionally, the policy states that, “In developing a school’s plan, the school’s committee shall consider methods to improve the cultural competency of the school’s teachers, administrators, staff, parents, and students.”
The committee’s responsibilities include the following:
A. identify the racial, ethnic, language-minority, cultural, exceptional learning, and socioeconomic groups that are included in the school’s population
B. incorporate culturally appropriate strategies for increasing educational opportunities and educational performance for each group in the school’s plan
C. recommend areas in which additional professional development is necessary to increase cultural competency in the school’s educational environment
Major said that he felt that identifying the different groups is something that can be done by the school’s administration, not the committee. He also expressed confusion about the meaning of the term cultural competency and added that BCSC schools are home to several nationalities, which could result in an increased workload for teachers under this policy.
“How many cultures do we have to be prepared to teach?” he asked. “How many culturally appropriate strategies need to be evaluated and developed? How much training is this for teachers? How many new lesson plans is this for teachers?”
Other topics addressed in the policy updates included student publications, filling school board vacancies, adding in the Graduation Pathways requirement for graduating classes starting in 2023 based on Indiana law and how to file a discrimination complaint in regards to food service. There were also some minor revisions to terminology.
As the meeting drew to a close, Nowlin said he appreciated the public input and hoped that the process of sharing policy drafts and receiving feedback would be “smoother” in the future.
“I had no idea how much excitement 62 pages of policy could stir up,” he said.
