School board regular business meeting
Monday, July 19, 2010
School Directors present: Susan Guthrie, Gary Friedlander, Lisa Pliskin, Diane DiBonnaventuro, David Ebby (Board President), Linda Doucette-Ashaman (Board VP), Lyn Kugel, Jerry Novick, Melissa Gilbert
Audience: About 130 people. About 120 are school district support staff **
Dr. McGinley (CM): Summer program (SPIES) enrollment is high.
High school construction update: Harriton temporary parking lots are being turned back into playing fields. LMHS: Will be ready to be opened in the fall, on budget. Pool is done.
IT Audit presentation: Chris Burgher from Sungaurd: recommendations are being made to the school district to satisfy the court order and the Ballard report.
Administration recommended actions:
Admin recommends approval of a 1-year contract with Asante & Associates. This group will work with achievement gap issues.
Susan Guthrie (SG): How will success be determined?
CM: Will put in place an evaluation model and report back to board.
School lunches to stay the same price as last year
Contract approved for environmental attorney [to defend suit filed by Beaumont?]
Report of Policy Committee (Linda Doucette-Ashman (LA))
Policies 800 retention of email records, & 915 school related organizations continue to be TABLED
Other policies relating to laptop, camera, security, and privacy issues are up for a "first read." Questions:
Melissa Gilbert (MG): Where are the 'best practices' coming from? And what specific concerns did the Tech advisory council raise?
A: Best practices come from International organization for standards, but mostly this case is charting new ground. Sungaurd has consulted for colleges & Univ's, and also HS's
TAC had concerns about software maintenance, and was generally pushing for more security not less.
Jerry Novick: Has Sungaurd done a HS policy on 1:1 laptops beofre?
CB: No.
JN: What resources do they have?
CB: Professional organizations, but generally breaking new ground.
JN: Did you check with Microsoft School in Philadelphia?
[Answer seems to be they have not checked thoroughly with the two schools in Philadelphia with 1:1 programs, but that some of their policies have been looked through briefly]
George Frasier (GF): Microsoft's schools policies resemble LMSD's previous policies, ie no expectation of privacy.
CM: 21st Century charter similar: no expectation of privacy
JN: Will the proposed policies satisfy the court order?
Ken Roos (KR): Yes.
JN: Do the policies allow us level of maintenance?
GF: Yes, they do not tie hands of district
LA: Policy will be available for public review online
MG: Announces that the broader policy will apply to younger kids too, not just high school. All school district families will be asked to sign on to the policies.
CM: Will be sending a lot of new info home.
Diane DiBonaventuro (DB): Will report of new training be available for review at the August meeting?
[Answer seems t be that the next SB meeting takes place before the training starts, so no]
Lyn Kugel (LK): If there are changes made to the policy before the next SB meeting how will there be time for a first read?
KR: Would advise waiving the 'first read' policy in this case, due to the time constraint imposed by the court order. August meeting can present changes and SB can vote on them right away. [Policies must be in place by September 1]
SG: How will the public know about the changes if there is no first read?
CM: Will push out the changes to the TAC, and post them on website.
2010 Legislative delegation to Harrisburg is to be Lisa Pliskin, Jerry Novick, and Melissa Gilbert
Public speakers: Nobody wants to comment today.
[** I inquired with some of the support staff as to their purpose attending the meeting, was told that they are attending in a protest of having to work without a contract. All ~120 dressed in black and wearing union stickers.]
Monday, July 19, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Policy Thursday, July 08, 2010
Tonight was a meeting in response to the webcam court order. There are several policies going for a first read Monday night. Check www.lmsd.org for the meeting agenda, hopefully with attachments.
Full board except Lyn Kugel
also Chris McGinley, Ken Roos, Michael Kelly and George Frazer
4 people in audience
on agenda are Policies 134, 390, 893, Local Board procedures, 224
Policy 134
There is a discussion of who there policies apply to - just 1 to 1 people or anyone using a LMSD computer?
Roos: this is policy/agreement to use the network
Novick: asks why we are mixing up policies this way. There should be general policies, and then specific policies
Roos: this is Sunguard's recommendation
Novick: but it isn't clean - he wants to see it cleaned up; there is a lot of repitition
Frazier: this was his idea; he wants to see a single controlling document so administrators only have one policy to deal with
So now the definition of LMSD-net will be changed
There is a discussion of who signs the agreement - one parent? Both parents? The kids starting at grade k? Novick wants to have both parents sign. Roos says legally one parent is enough
Guthrie asks about civility language - missing from this policy. Most board members want something added. Roos: this creates an expectation that we will enforce the policy. It is already in the "best practices" - attachment E. A long discussion about why gambling is included in the policy and bullying isn't.
Guthrie: why are we allowing non school-related use of computers?
Roos: we are trying to create something to enforce, but not so strict that everyone violates it
Guthrie: this is taxpayer provided - why are we letting them use it for non-school use at all?
diBonaventura: too specific creates too many holes
Guthrie: what is "incidental" anyway?
Doucette-Ashman: isn't there an option for parents to restrict access to certain social networking sites?
A couple dozen parents opted for this restriction
diBonaventura: how much of this (holds up thick stack of papers) goes home?
Attachment D goes home, everything else is on the web
(but Attachment D references A, B, etc - they will be sending a lot home)
Novick is freaking out about language being repeated all over the place - dangerous to repeat so much. Hard to revise, bulky.
McGinley: we need to be very specific to comply with court order
Doucette-Ashman: this is taking too long, we will be here all night
They check the wording of the court order - cant find the court order right away
Guthrie: section 4b - there are statements saying we won't access remotely; but do we have some rights to remote access? Where are these spelled out
We give them time to remove all the evidence?
diBonaventura: can we remotely lock the computer?
Frazer: a savey kid will get around this
diBonaventura: can a student save on the computer itself
Frazier: yes
Guthrie: so we have no recourse
McGinley: we can always take the laptop
They all check to see is they can take a laptop without allowing a kid to wipe it clean. They can, but they need a consent form? No, they can, they just cannot do anything remotely.
Roos: Absolutely cannot remotely look at files on a computer without parental consent
The court order says that they cant to this. Absolutely, no way.
Another discussion about how messy all this is. They decide to leave the mess as is, and see how it goes.
[my thought: Yikes - really?]
Doucette-Ashman: asks about the "boot camp" program for the kids; it was a private conversation, we aren't informed
audience questions:
Q: how long do the signatures last? 6 years seems like a long time
A: Roos: it is enforceable, better if you update it now and then
discussion: Balancing administrative burden vs usefulness
Susan comes up with compromise - just tell people they are signing for the entire time in the building. Decide to get people to sign every 3 years or so (K,3 or 4,6,9)
Friedlander leaves
Policy 134 AR
The policy wants to see a person responsible for enforcing a policy. Novick doesn't see this requirement in the Court order. They show it to Novick.
Attachment A
Doucette-Ashman wants a better intro sentence - used to be there
Doucette-Ashman also wants parents to be financially responsible for problems the kids cause
audence Q: can you really make people financially responsible for what their kids do without going to the court?
Roos: without this language you cant.
Chris M wants to come back to this in November. Unclear if they will add the line or not.
Attachment B
Doucette-Ashman: would you ever have to access a file remotely
Frazier: maybe (ie having trouble with margins)
Another discussion about taking a students computer to look at files
I have to leave now…...
Full board except Lyn Kugel
also Chris McGinley, Ken Roos, Michael Kelly and George Frazer
4 people in audience
on agenda are Policies 134, 390, 893, Local Board procedures, 224
Policy 134
There is a discussion of who there policies apply to - just 1 to 1 people or anyone using a LMSD computer?
Roos: this is policy/agreement to use the network
Novick: asks why we are mixing up policies this way. There should be general policies, and then specific policies
Roos: this is Sunguard's recommendation
Novick: but it isn't clean - he wants to see it cleaned up; there is a lot of repitition
Frazier: this was his idea; he wants to see a single controlling document so administrators only have one policy to deal with
So now the definition of LMSD-net will be changed
There is a discussion of who signs the agreement - one parent? Both parents? The kids starting at grade k? Novick wants to have both parents sign. Roos says legally one parent is enough
Guthrie asks about civility language - missing from this policy. Most board members want something added. Roos: this creates an expectation that we will enforce the policy. It is already in the "best practices" - attachment E. A long discussion about why gambling is included in the policy and bullying isn't.
Guthrie: why are we allowing non school-related use of computers?
Roos: we are trying to create something to enforce, but not so strict that everyone violates it
Guthrie: this is taxpayer provided - why are we letting them use it for non-school use at all?
diBonaventura: too specific creates too many holes
Guthrie: what is "incidental" anyway?
Doucette-Ashman: isn't there an option for parents to restrict access to certain social networking sites?
A couple dozen parents opted for this restriction
diBonaventura: how much of this (holds up thick stack of papers) goes home?
Attachment D goes home, everything else is on the web
(but Attachment D references A, B, etc - they will be sending a lot home)
Novick is freaking out about language being repeated all over the place - dangerous to repeat so much. Hard to revise, bulky.
McGinley: we need to be very specific to comply with court order
Doucette-Ashman: this is taking too long, we will be here all night
They check the wording of the court order - cant find the court order right away
Guthrie: section 4b - there are statements saying we won't access remotely; but do we have some rights to remote access? Where are these spelled out
We give them time to remove all the evidence?
diBonaventura: can we remotely lock the computer?
Frazer: a savey kid will get around this
diBonaventura: can a student save on the computer itself
Frazier: yes
Guthrie: so we have no recourse
McGinley: we can always take the laptop
They all check to see is they can take a laptop without allowing a kid to wipe it clean. They can, but they need a consent form? No, they can, they just cannot do anything remotely.
Roos: Absolutely cannot remotely look at files on a computer without parental consent
The court order says that they cant to this. Absolutely, no way.
Another discussion about how messy all this is. They decide to leave the mess as is, and see how it goes.
[my thought: Yikes - really?]
Doucette-Ashman: asks about the "boot camp" program for the kids; it was a private conversation, we aren't informed
audience questions:
Q: how long do the signatures last? 6 years seems like a long time
A: Roos: it is enforceable, better if you update it now and then
discussion: Balancing administrative burden vs usefulness
Susan comes up with compromise - just tell people they are signing for the entire time in the building. Decide to get people to sign every 3 years or so (K,3 or 4,6,9)
Friedlander leaves
Policy 134 AR
The policy wants to see a person responsible for enforcing a policy. Novick doesn't see this requirement in the Court order. They show it to Novick.
Attachment A
Doucette-Ashman wants a better intro sentence - used to be there
Doucette-Ashman also wants parents to be financially responsible for problems the kids cause
audence Q: can you really make people financially responsible for what their kids do without going to the court?
Roos: without this language you cant.
Chris M wants to come back to this in November. Unclear if they will add the line or not.
Attachment B
Doucette-Ashman: would you ever have to access a file remotely
Frazier: maybe (ie having trouble with margins)
Another discussion about taking a students computer to look at files
I have to leave now…...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
