Board of Education — July 21, 2026

I'd like to call this meeting to order at 6.04. And we're going to take roll. Board Member Wilson? Here. Board Member Olson? Here. Clerk Ayala-Quintero? Present. Vice President Hollihan? Present. And I am here. Would somebody like to lead the pledge? Thank you, Patty. Thank you, Patty.

Please stand. Put your right hand over your heart. Face the flag. Ready, begin.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Can I have a motion to approve the agenda with flexibility and polling 16G?

So moved.

Second. Thank you, Patty. Thank you, Candy. Any discussion? All right. Call for the vote.

Motion carried, 5-0.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of the May 27, 2026 special board meeting, June 9, 2026, and June 23, 2026 regular board meetings? So moved. And I'll second. Any discussion? I'll call for the vote.

Motion carried, 5-0.

In regards to public employment, Oh, I'm sorry, the closed session readout. In regards to public employee read appointment part of the agenda, I'd like to report the following. In closed session, the board took action to appoint Caleb Rothy to the position of assistant principal at Mariposa Elementary School and Crafton Elementary School, effective July 22, 2026, at step three of the management team's salary schedule, with the following vote. Ayala Quintero, Hollihan, Olson, Rendler, Wilson, all voting aye. Caleb, would you like to say, do you have anybody with you tonight? Did you bring anybody with you here tonight? I did. I brought my wife, Kelly, with me this evening. Hi, Kelly. I just want to thank the board of trustees as well as all the members for the opportunity.

I'm very excited to serve our district in this new capacity. Thank you all so much.

Thank you. Welcome. In closed session, the board took action to appoint Entropy Mond to the position of assistant principal, Lagonia Elementary School, effective to be determined at step five of the management team's salary schedule with the following vote. Ayala Quintero, Hollihan, Olson, Rundler, and Wilson all voting aye. Entropy, are you here? Would you like to say it? Who did you bring with you tonight?

I brought my wife.

Oh, welcome, welcome. Welcome to Redlands. Would you like to come say a few words?

This has been a fun journey. I really just enjoyed the interview process. It was really enlightening and thrilling. I'm thrilled to be working with Redlands. I'm happy to be a part of the team. Thank you.

We welcome you here to Redlands. In closed session, the board took action to appoint Patricia Tish Velasquez to the position of assistant to the superintendent, effective August 5th, 2026, at step five of the management team salary schedule, with the following vote. Ayala, Quintero, Hollihan, Olson, Rundler, and Wilson, all voting aye. Aye.

Would you like to come say something? I'm solo tonight. My clan is all busy running here and there with varsity tryouts and practices. But I just want to thank the board very much for the opportunity to return home. I was born and raised in Redlands, love Redlands, and I can't wait to be the assistant to the superintendent beginning August 5th. Thank you so much. Well, welcome home. Thank you.

And now on to presentations. It's time for a presentation on artificial intelligence in Redlands Unified. Mr. Hill, are you ready?

All right. First, I'll apologize to my low night FM DJ voice. I lost my voice earlier this week, so it's slowly starting to come back. The presentation tonight is going to cover the guidance document that you guys have in front of you. We had a team of people working on that, and we'll explain that in a minute. What I'm going to talk about today really is not about AI specifically, but why we are addressing the topic of AI within RUSD. I'm going to start with a story about my daughters. I have two daughters, if you guys know anything about me. Both attended school from kindergarten through 12th grade in Redlands, USD. Graduated, both went off to college, and during COVID is about the same time AI was starting to kind of get talked about. And both of them were home. You know, they were off to college. One of them was. And during that time, they spent a lot of time at home. I didn't know a lot about AI at the time. I saw the news articles and the pros and the cons and everything. I kind of felt a little bit amiss of what information was there, because I just didn't know anything about it. But my older daughter, surprisingly, had actually paid for a chat GPT subscription. blew me off a little bit. I'm like, what are you talking about? But she was a little older, right? She can afford her own items. And she'd given ChatGPT a name. She used it as a friend. She used it to have guidance, help her with social situations, used it to motivate her when she was feeling down. And I was talking to her about that, and I was kind of surprised, because I didn't know a lot about AI at the time. But I was a little caught off guard that I had a fifth person living in my home that I didn't know. So I took it upon myself to learn. So I jumped into AI. I learned as much as I could. And I have a tech background, so it's easy for me to pick up on some of those details. But with my second daughter, I started to have those conversations about what large language models are, what about bias and how AI works, and how it's always encouraging and it always kind of gives you what you're asking for. And I started having those conversations with my daughters. Then, surprise me, she also paid for a subscription. And I started watching how she was using it to refine work that she was working on. She was using it to help her resumes. She was using her introduction when she was applying for jobs, and she was throwing it through AI to look for keywords. And I was noticing the difference between the two daughters and how they used that product. They're both using ChatGPT at the time. both using the paid subscription. One is a friend, one is a tool. And the difference between the two is not the education they had. It was their father talking about how to use it properly. And I started to realize that if we don't start talking about AI, then it's just going to pass us up. There's a survey that Common Sense Media did last year and they surveyed a couple thousand kids across the U.S., all school-aged kids, and they found that 86% of all kids they surveyed used AI in school, even if the school allowed it or not. So if you think about Redlands Unified, that's about 16,000 kids within our district that, if surveyed, probably used some form of AI. Of those 16,000 kids, only 40% of them had an adult talking about how to use AI safely. So for us, that's about 6,000 kids. So only about 6,000 of our students have had a person like me in their life talking about the proper way to use AI with their children. Now I was lucky in the fact that I'm in a school district. I have access to these tools. I have access to education. I understand how to teach. And so it was really easy for me to kind of pick up the tool and have that conversation with my daughter. It's not so easy for a lot of our parents, right? So how do I, as an educator, prepare students for the world of AI that they're going to be entering? McKinsey did a state of AI in 2025 that looked at businesses. So 55% of businesses used AI or expected their employees to be using it in 2023. 78% of those businesses in 2024. And by 2025, 91% of all businesses that McKinsey surveyed used AI at some form or fashion in their business. that nearly doubled in two years. So our students, if we like AI or not, are going to be exiting 12th grade into a world where AI is expected to be used in businesses. And if we go off the earlier survey, how many of those students understand how to use it appropriately? So that's the gap. that we need to fill. So what we did in Redlands is we started to look at, how do we fill that? So Ed Services, Caleb, who's not here now, was a huge part of this, along with our Educational Technology Department, the entire Ed Services team. We surveyed principals. We surveyed parents. We surveyed students. about what are their expectations and what do they want to know? How do they want AI used? What grades do they feel it's appropriate? And we took as much information as we could to build the policy that you have in front of you. And what it does is it outlines AI in a progression. It talks about in K5, we're going to learn about AI. We're not going to be using AI with our kids. There is no AI model currently out there that allows children to safely use it. So even when we talk about Google, and it's one of the things that we partnered with, Jim and I, they don't allow it before the age of 13 anyway. So we're not giving AI to our children. What we want to do is talk about how to use AI safely. What is it? Does it have a bias? How does it work? Is AI human? Is it not human? How does that AI in the world that they're growing up in take place? Those are the conversations that we're going to be having with our children while they're in elementary school. It's not until middle school we start to learn and use AI. But we're not going to be giving students access to those chatting agents in middle school. We're allowing teachers to be using tools that use AI with kids so that students can start to learn how to use those tools responsibly. So we build the foundation. math, English, writing, all in K-5. We start to involve AI in the six through eight models, right? But not give students direct access to those chatting agents. An example might be a notebook, right? So a teacher creates a notebook LM or a custom GPT that talks about historical figures. And students can go in and chat with those historical figures while in class in front of a teacher. It's not until 9-12 when we get into high school that we start rolling out AI where students have access to those chatting agents. The chatting agent that we're talking about at the high school is Chat for Schools, and we'll get into that a little bit later, and Gemini for the older students. So when you look about the progression of design, we start teaching foundational AI skills in K-5. We start to introduce students in the middle school levels, and we don't give them access until the high school levels. When they have access, we need to talk about responsible use. So in this document in front of you, we talk a lot about making sure that students are using it and teachers are using it responsibly. So we're going to create a common language framework so that students and teachers both understand what's acceptable. So we have five AI use levels. Level one, no AI assistance allowed, which means if a teacher says right up front that this is a level one assignment, that means no AI can be used at all with that assignment. This is just common language here. So if we're talking about a level two assignment, a student can use AI for idea generation, but not to produce any final product, not to do any of the work. Level five is all the way in, right? AI is a co-creator. You're using AI to co-create those finished products with you. And we can go into details, but you have the document in front of you. For the parents that are listening, this document will be on our website, and we'll have an entire website dedicated to these ideas by the start of school. But these are a clear language Right, so teachers and students understand when they start an assignment and what a teacher says, this is the level of AI they can use, then students can follow that. So it's a common set, common set of language. Now we're gonna talk about academic integrity and what is a violation of using AI. So we're gonna be clear up front that misrepresentation of AI, so when we talk about these earlier levels, I'll go back here. We clarified up front how you can use AI. So if they're misrepresenting how they used it, that is a violation. Which means if we say it's a level one assignment and they're using AI to do that, that's a clear violation. Assessment interference, using AI to complete any assessments, quizzes, tests, any type of assessment. Information falsification, basically using AI to falsify information, not documenting the proper use of it, not citing things correctly. Identity deception, when we're talking about trying to use AI to mimic other people, to lie about what we're using, to create false images, to use AI in an inappropriate way, and AI-enabled harassment. We don't want students harassing other students with AI. So these are all violations. And in that document, there's specifics to that. And our parents and our students will have these documents again online so they can see all that. And all of this stuff is currently not available to our students, which it will be at some point. What happens if a student misuses, teacher misuses, right, and violates one of those policies? We're going to have a due process set up. I'm going to turn my page so I don't miss that piece. Anytime that there is detection of AI that was used inappropriately, we're going to have a four-stage process to combat that. One of the things that our teachers were worried about is what happens when a student uses AI and we think they used AI, but we can't prove it. What happens in the opposite direction when a student believes teachers are using AI to grade and it's not their work? What happens in those situations? And so the first phase of any of those situations is evidence collection. So teachers are going to start collecting evidence on why they believe AI was used. We're shying away from any AI identification process. So there are a lot of detectors out there, AI detectors, that do a lot of false positives, right? And so we don't want to rely on those AI detectors to determine someone's using AI. We want to use humans to do that. So we're going to require teachers to collect evidence. What does that look like? Why do they believe this happened? Is it a series of quizzes that they did? Is it a series of assignments where you don't believe that assignment? And they start to collect evidence. Phase two is a preliminary student conference where the teachers and the students will get together to talk about it. They'll report and document. And then there's an appeal process. So there's always a chance for parents and students to appeal any type of decision making with the teacher and with their administrators. There's a lot of concern about security, privacy, and bias. I'll just say it up front. AI has a bias. We know that. So we need to address it right away. We need to confidently choose the tools. There are two AI tools that we're using. One is through Google and one is through Chat for Schools. We adopted a new product this year called LineWise. Line-wise is our web filter. So all of you or even our students notice that they are blocked on certain types of websites they try to get to when they're using Google and they use Google inappropriately. There's a product that we used to use called Gaggle that would search those and then notify school administrators when students are using those tools inappropriately or self-harm. None of those tools captured chats. And so LineWise, which we're adopting in the 26-27 school year, so when they start back up, will actually search chat feeds. So if a student is using a chatting agent on our property and they're using it inappropriately or for self-harm, this product will flag that and then notify school administrators that they were using it. Along with Chat for Schools at our secondary levels, it constantly searches the chats and notifies administrators of any inappropriate use, self-harm, harassment, anything like that. So the information inside the chats are captured and monitored. Another thing for Chat for Schools is we can turn it on and off at any particular time. So we can turn it on for assignments and turn it off as well. All of these are COPA compliant, SIPA compliant, FERPA compliant, which are all the laws that govern family rights, student protection, and will ensure that any of the tools, none of them train on any of the data. So none of the data put into these systems are kept for training for these purposes. And all of it are behind our firewalls, which means none of the data that's putting in is getting out there. But that doesn't stop us from having to teach kids and teach parents and teach students how to properly use these products. Our goal is not to specifically use AI. Our goal is to teach students how to be prepared for a future with it. There's a lot of... controversy out there right we talk about ai they talk about water towers and electric and it's ruining communities and people are hurting themselves and we're never going to be able to combat all of those answers here in redlands i don't even want to attempt to get into those battles what i want to kind of get across is that ai is happening In the world. Students are using it now. I can guarantee you if you just surveyed a typical high school classroom, the majority of them would raise their hand that they're using some form of AI out there. And there's some scary ones out there. You know, there are... I'll talk about one called Hugging Face, if you've ever heard that. It is these chatting agents and these models that have no safeguards in them. Right? And they're free. So how many of those students have downloaded that on their phone and are using AI agents with zero safeguards put into them? And so what we're attempting to do is to educate students, and we've built policies around how to properly use AI to teach those safeguards, to educate our kids so that they're prepared for when they graduate. And in all of this, it's up to a parent if they want to have students access to any of it. right we can turn off and turn on their ability to access these agents at any given time and we'll have opt-outs built into the systems that they can put in there if a parent chooses to not have their kid have any access to ai we can shut all that off so all of this that we're talking about today has the ability up to a parent to shut that off I would hope that that doesn't happen because what our goal is is to educate parents and educate students on how to use these tools safely and appropriately. Because at some point when they graduate from here and go off into the world, they're going to be using it. And so let's help them get there. So the policy that you have in front of you is our best shot at this point. at building a system that will bridge that gap between safety and not safety. It is a revision that has gone through parents, students, and teachers, and administrators up until this point. There is a lot that we're going to learn once we flip the switch. Any questions?

That was fabulous.

Thank you. Thank you. Don't flip that switch just yet. I have a few questions. What is an example of the AI information being shared with the K1? I feel like that's really young. So what type of, and I understand there's no AI use, but it is educating them about it. What kind of information would that entail?

So we're still working through that. There are a lot of platforms out there with like common sense media that has a lot of programs for elementary kids. I'm not going to say right here that we're going to have fully developed plans for K-1. It may not be the appropriate age. What we've identified is that in those elementary schools, when we say K-5, that's our elementary schools, right? And so what we wanted to be clear about is that we're not going to be giving access to agents, to our elementary students, that we're going to ensure that we're teaching reading, writing, and math in elementary. But at the same time, throughout their elementary experience, we're going to be exposing them to the concepts of AI so that they understand AI is not a human, that it does have a bias, and that when they start using it in middle school, they're not going into middle school blind. So there's not going to be a lot of things talked about at the elementary school levels except the general concepts of AI. Okay. So we'll develop trainings that we're going to, we're still debating on if we're going to develop specific lessons, like to say a PowerPoint, right? So it's just a simple lesson that teachers could develop along the way and what grades we'll give those to. So really, I don't have any specifics for like kinder.

Okay. Thank you. So I've voiced it before, I do have, and I've told our superintendent, I do have a bit of an issue with this subject. I just feel like as adults, we can differentiate between what, for us, what an appropriate amount of AI use is. I mean, we all know that you tend to be a little more pro, and I tend not to, is not to say that I haven't ever used it. In a pinch, yes, I may have used it from time to time, but it's not something I integrate into my daily life. And so being that we can differentiate the responsible use of AI, even if we choose not to, even just to use it as a tool, I think there is value in that because we've learned the other way, so we know the difference. We know... what we're comfortable with and how much control we're comfortable letting go, whereas our students don't. Especially, you know, there's a difference when they've grown up with a phone in their hand at any age. I think it's going to be a lot more difficult for our students to be able to navigate that, and especially when there are so many... AI platforms that don't have, like you said, they have a bias. So it doesn't matter what you put in there, it's going to tell you what you want to hear. And I don't know that that's very safe for a hormonal or impressionable student, especially when you get to the middle school level. We all know that that's the point where it's the big H, when you start to deal with real things like crushes and Not to say they don't have them in elementary school, but it's that middle place between child and teenager where there's a lot of new feelings, there's a lot of new responsibilities, and I have a very high level of discomfort with that's the point where we're going to give our students AI use, even if we're educating them on that. So I'm a little hesitant for that. But what I really, really have a question on is... How are we going to, if you were saying that we're going to have the ability, parents will be able to turn off AI access for their kids, and I love that aspect of it. However, what's going to happen when it comes to grading? How is a teacher going to be able to grade the same assignment when a student has used AI as a tool versus a student who has not? There is going to be a difference in the work. So how would that look in a day-to-day setting?

Well, I think a lot of it's educating teachers. So what we haven't really talked about here, because this was about the policies, was the education that we have to put into teaching. Students are going to be using AI with or without us talking about it, with or without us giving them access to it. They're going to be using it. And we have to talk about how to grade that. If we're only asking to grade a a paper that's turned in, well, yeah, that paper can be written with AI or without AI, right? If we're asking them to develop outlines along the way or to present that final project along with a presentation, along with an oral presentation, working groups, things like that, we're going to have to start – AI is going to change the face of education eventually, right? I think it's already doing that. And so we have to teach different assessment models. I'm pretty good with AI. I generally can tell pretty quickly if it's used or not off simple cues. But AI is getting better to prevent those things. And so there's a level of distrust. I'll just say it. I don't trust anything anymore. Right? I don't. I was talking with my tech guy today that how many of you have forgotten your password and you call tech and you say, hey, I need you to reset my password. But what's happening now is people are using AI to mimic our voices. So we don't even know if it's you calling me anymore. Because it might not be you. It might be an AI. So these things are happening right now in this society. And if we don't get in front of it and we don't start teaching kids on how to judge that, then what are we doing? You know, my daughter, my younger one and my wife are on vacation right now. And I was talking with them yesterday on the phone. And my younger one had her email hacked. And her college that she graduated from had shut her email off. And I said, what do you mean it got hacked? And she goes, well, we were told when we graduated after six months we're going to get our email accounts deactivated. So I got an email six months later from IT saying you're going to get your email deactivated. Log in here and transfer your data. So she did. She clicked on a link in an email. she's lucky I was on the other side of the phone, right? Because I'm like, if you know anything about me, this is all I've talked about for years. And my own daughter got hacked. Right? Because she clicked on an email. And these are something that I've talked about over and over and over and over again. So there's social engineering. There's all kinds of stuff happening right now. And I'm a person that's talking actively with my children about this. But how many people aren't where I am or don't have the knowledge or the tech background and aren't having these conversations? And those are the types of things we have to do with our children. And are our teachers the best prepared for this? Not all of them, right? So we have to teach our teachers. We have to give them the tools so they can start talking about these things. So the answer to your question on how are they going to know, well, we have to educate them, right? Because there is going to be a difference. Right now, teachers, a parent can say, I don't want my kid using a computer, right? So what happens when the teacher wants it typed? Does the teacher give the student who has it typed versus handwritten a different grade? It's the same concept. Teachers are going to have to be better at differentiating their work. They're going to have to understand that it may not be accurate. But that's why we want humans involved. That's why we don't want to use AI detection software. We want humans and teachers who do know who their kids are. We all know. I mean, I was a teacher for 15 years. I knew which kids could do the work and which ones couldn't. When I assigned to work, I already knew up front who would get the A's, who would get the B's, who would get the C's. So if my C student is all coming out with A's, I'm going to go, hmm, I wonder why.

Thank you. One more. Is there going to be some balance worked into the policy? I glanced at it. I didn't get to go all the way through it, so forgive me. In not using AI, because I feel like there is value in learning how to do research in physical media. Because, I mean... It's one thing to have to search through an encyclopedia and magazines and articles and things like that to find, even if you're looking up a biography about someone, versus typing it into chat and getting an immediate answer. You're not going to retain that information. So I want to make sure that this is something that we're highlighting because we've had at least beginning of a discussion about cutting back our students' screen time use. And I want to make sure that we're not deep diving and going headfirst into this without preserving some of the skills we know our children are lacking right now.

Yeah. I mean, I put this back up on the screen because this is the idea of that, right? So a teacher can say, look, I want you to do this project in level one, right? No AI assistant at all. I want you to do everything by hand, right? This is that document that says this is that common... language. Outside of this policy, the work with Ed Services is what are we giving our students? I mean, we talk about that all the time. We have teachers that do worksheets all day. You have teachers that stand and deliver all day. You have teachers that collaborate with their kids and do group assignments. You have teachers that are co-facilitators to learning, right? So we right now have teachers that are all over the gamut. This is the same thing, right? You're going to have teachers who are super techie and don't mind it at all. I probably, as a teacher now, I was high school and I was kind of a tech teacher, so go ahead and use it. It wouldn't matter to me. But if I was a math teacher, I might have had a different opinion. So we're going to have teachers that also have opinions. And you're going to have some teachers that allow it and some teachers that don't, which is why we have the teacher's ability within Chat for Schools to turn it on and turn it off. So that a teacher can go in and shut it off while the students are with them. Now again, this on-off thing is high school, because we're not giving kids prior to high school direct access to these agents. So when we talk about your middle school concern earlier, students don't have access to go in and start chatting in middle school. They're only utilizing the tools that teachers are giving them while in the classroom. It's not until the high school level, and potentially I would even say later high school level, that 11th and 12th grade, where students are actually chatting not in a direct connection with teachers. But that's when our tools kick in to make sure that the chatting that they're using is at least safe.

Will they still have the ability, teachers still have the ability to check these things? Say, I mean, this is all working off of one of our devices. So say a student does the assignment on their own personal device and submits that. Will we still have the ability, obviously not to scan their chats, but will we still have some sort of protections to be able to detect that?

Yeah, I mean, if they're using any device on our property and they're connected to our network, it'll be scanned. Right? If they're using Google and they're logged into Google, no matter what computer they're on, it's going to go through our line wise because that's all searched. But there are always the chance that they have a phone, right, that's not connected to our school network, that's completely not signed in, and they're just chatting at home. They have the ability to do that. But we hope that we created a foundation in those earlier levels that at least allow that conversation to occur. And if a teacher believes they're cheating, that's when those four steps get brought in, right? Because I would hope that our teachers, and I believe they do, understand in a general sense of where their students are. And if AI is starting to use predominantly with any of their kids, I would hope that they would understand that and know that. And if they suspect it, there's a system in place, and you can read through the details because it's quite detailed, more than I gave today, about how they go about making that assessment, right? But we also wanted to make sure that teachers just can't make this claim with no recourse for parents. So in that same policy, there's steps for parents to take if they believe that their student's being accused of something. Yeah.

Okay, I'm done. Thank you.

Thank you, Jason. I just have a quick thing. I think this is great, but maybe your team did such a good job on this. Maybe you guys could come up with something for kids who are younger using phones and learning how to use social media and all that. Come up with step-by-step for parents. That would be a good thing for you guys to do. You might earn some money.

I had a couple questions. So the chat for schools, it's supposed to monitor the chatting?

It does.

And will that monitor all different chats? So it monitors all chats on that same computer, like whether it's through CLAW, GPT, GROC?

No. Chat for Schools is its own model.

Is the chat.

Yeah. Chat for Schools is like ChatGPT. I see. Right? They're just chatting in that. The company is called Skillstruct. Skillstruct.

That's the one that's going to monitor the chats? Yeah.

And what it allows us to do, like right now, I could log into that system, go to a teacher, go to a student, and see all the chats and read them.

And only the chats, you would only see the chats in Chat for Schools? Correct. Okay. So if a kid was chatting on the side with Claude on a different tab, we wouldn't know that.

No. And that's the point, right? So what we're hoping to do by giving them access to some of these protected agents, like Gemini and Chat for Schools, we're giving them tools that aren't going to max them out, and we hope they use them. Right? There are going to be students that don't. There are going to be students that still use ChatGPT and still use Claude. And is there any way for us to monitor that? No. Right? We can block those if they're logged into our network. Right? So we can block it like we do any bad website that we don't want.

Well, that would be good.

Yeah.

So they have to use that one chat that's protected. While they're on our property, while they're connected.

But we hope that the foundational skills that we teach along the way, even if they're using those other agents, at least they're using it responsibly. Right. Right. And they think twice before what they put in it. Right. Or what they get out of it. Do they believe what it says? Cause it's always going to compliment you. I mean, I don't know that I've ever made chat GPT mad at me.

Yeah.

You know, I tried once.

Yeah. It gives fake information to completely fake.

Because it's not a brain, right? We think it's thinking, it's not thinking, it's just pairing words together.

Right.

It just looks for common words that fall next to each other and giving you those back.

Is some of the ideas for teachers testing, like periodically, maybe a couple times a semester or trimester, just like doing paper-to-pen assignments strictly so that it can work? See if it's corresponding and lining up with what's being produced.

Yeah. As we're starting to talk about what work we have to do with teachers, those are conversations that are coming about.

Well, that would discourage a student, too, because they'll know that they're going to obviously get caught if they keep using it.

We've had a pilot group of 11th and 12th grade high school English teachers. Okay. that have been for two years now talking about AI use in the classroom. They were our most concerned teachers. Caleb, the guy you proved tonight, was the one having those conversations with those teachers. Jamie and I have attended a couple of those meetings. And it blows me away about what these teachers what they contribute, right? They've had some really good ideas, pro and con to AI. And a lot of this formation of these policies came as a result of that meeting. And we're going to be relying on those people to help us educate teachers.

One question I had was that you've seen online with the Google Lens while a child is taking a test or an assessment online, and then the Google Lens will come and offer answers to those questions. Is that something that can be turned off during test time or assignments or access? Can a kid access a second tab and open up ChatGPT during a test? I don't even know the answers to that as it is now.

You know, right now, what you're talking about is a secure browser, right?

Well, basically, if they're able to access chatting or AI while they're taking a test.

Yeah, I mean, we block certain AI right now, but there's always ways and other models that these kids find. I mean, kids are much smarter than we are, and they find what they find.

So during a test right now, if they're taking a test on their Chromebook, can they access new tabs? Yes.

I don't... Yes, they can open a new tab.

Okay, so they could be going to ChatGPT.

But one thing that this line-wise allows is for teachers to see the screens of all of the students at any given time. So, like, during a test, teachers can pull up those screens. And they should be walking around the room anyway, right? I mean, I would hope... that if I have kids taking tests and I'm doing an electronic test that we're walking around and watching, right? You don't have kids.

Right. Okay. I had one last question, then I'll be done. Let's see. The last question, you mentioned it will be all of this information and how we're rolling it out. You said it will be on the website at the beginning of this coming school year for parents to access.

Yeah.

And what would that be under? What department?

It's going to be under programs, artificial intelligence.

Okay. Great. Thank you so much.

It's not there yet. It's hidden still because we're developing it. But when school starts. Basically, we're taking that policy that you have in front of you, and we're putting it onto a website. But it's going to be found under, so when you go across off, you've got parents, programs, departments, it'll be under programs, artificial intelligence.

Thank you so much.

I haven't told Chris, you don't know yet. Now she knows. Okay.

Now she knows.

Yeah.

You pretty much addressed my question. That was going to be about teachers needing to be educated and proceeding with all of this on the same page, everyone on the same page. Yeah. but also it sounds like it could be somewhat time consuming for teachers.

What we're worried about, I mean, I'll tell you is this is perfect when it's been in place for years, right? So for example, our 12th graders today didn't have K five training and didn't have middle school training, right? So 12 years from now, We're rocking it, right? But we're not there. We're here. It's just going to take a lot of work. We're finding a lot of stuff that are out there of training. We're working with Google and CDW, which is a program we're working with, on providing training for teachers. What I didn't mention in here, just because I thought I would make it longer, that I was up here, there was a whole study done by the... Walton Foundation, owners of Walmart. And what they did is they surveyed teachers to find out what teachers need. And the data is not in here, but basically what it said is most districts are turning on AI without training teachers. And so teachers don't know how to use it, right? They're expected to teach it or talk about it, but they don't know how to use it. We're aware of that. Right? Do we have an answer for you today? No. But we've had those conversations. What we were originally offered as a part of was these long trainings. And we thought, hey, long trainings are not going to be good for anybody. I'd rather have short 30, 45 minute trainings for teachers. And I don't want them on one specific day that teachers have to go to. So if teachers can go on that day, that's fine. But can we record it and host it somewhere so teachers can look at these videos at any time that they choose to? So that's what we're building. We've launched something called the Redlands Launchpad, which is a learning community for teachers to belong to. And they can learn about AI in that. And we'll put all these lessons in there so they can start using it. We don't expect teachers to just turn it on on August 1 and know what to do. It's going to take us time to do this. We freaked people out a little bit last year because we said, hey, we purchased Gemini, right? That's all we did. Purchase it. We didn't turn it on for kids. We turned it on for staff to allow staff to start using it, start to understand it. We didn't have a lot of use of it. And I was a little shocked. I'm like, no one's using it. I just paid for it. But I realized it's because we didn't show anybody how to use it. So what did I expect to get? So we tailored that back a little bit. We made sure that we didn't go too far. We stepped back. We created some policies. And now we're going to start training teachers before we even turn it on for kids. So it's not ready for kids in August.

Well, I just want to tell you thank you to you and your team on the work that you've done with Jamie and everyone else and all the help. The services team, yeah. Yeah, we're going to be able to move forward now with this. So thank you. I have one more question. Sorry.

What kind of protections are we going to have for students? Because we're hearing about data breaches all the time. How are we going to ensure that if our student is working on one of our devices, they're recording videos, they're using their voice, how are we going to guarantee and protect our students that those won't be stolen and used for deep fakes? I've actually had a family member call me and tell me that my daughter called them asking for money because they were in danger, and they swear up and down it was her voice, and this was years ago. So technology has clearly evolved since. But if we're going to be asking our students to buy into this, even if we are guiding them through it, I kind of feel like it has to be opening us up to a little more liability.

We're never safe. Right? I have faith in our department. We have a lot of safeguards in place to prevent hacks. I don't want to say that we're perfect because once I say that, something bad will happen. So I don't want to say that. There are districts, there are hospitals, there's governmental agencies that get hacked. Right? We do everything we can to prevent that. The same reason why it's so frustrating for a lot of people why they can't add their own devices, why they can't reset their passwords easily, why do we require multi-factor authentication and require people to go in and put in their phones That's all in efforts to create safeguards so that we don't get hacked. The hard part about hacking is not the holes in our system, it's the social engineering. It's about the fake calls and the fake emails. I had this conversation today with my tech guy about the fake calls. I think I talked about that earlier. We can't even now take your phone call to reset our password. Now, we can, but we know that that is a hole, that that is a gap. So we're putting in protections, which is going to frustrate people. My tech guy director mentioned it to me today so that I was aware of it, so that when you guys forget your password and you say, hey, they won't reset my password anymore, and I'm going to go, well, we don't want that to happen. So we do everything we can to prevent bad things from happening. Will they ever happen? I don't know. You know, I pray that they don't, right? Because that day, it just happened in San Bernardino, right? It happens. But we have good tech guys. They do good work. They protect our systems, and we're going to continue to do that, even though that it frustrates all of us users a little bit in the process. And we'll continue to do that.

Part of the education that teachers will be doing to educate the kids on the safe use of AI will include the emotional use, right? Because I think that's one of the biggest dangers, too, is using them as companions.

Yep.

Thank you, Jason. Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Now it's time for public participation. The Board of Education values the perspectives and participation of our community members. Public comment provides an important opportunity for individuals to share their views on district matters. The Board encourages comments, feedback, and input from all voices in the community, including those who may have differing opinions. and perspectives. The California Office of the Attorney General asked us to share that in their view matters pertaining to specific identifiable students or any group of students should remain private to the extent possible. If you have a complaint about an employee or a student matter please utilize the appropriate complaint procedure contact dr rudy wilson assistant superintendent of compliance who can assist you with filing any such complaint as a reminder not all speech is free from consequence and since this is the board's meeting in public where minors may be present we encourage all participants to conduct themselves in a civilized non-threatening manner Thank you for your cooperation and for contributing to a civil and student-focused discussion. Members of the public may address the board on matters within its jurisdiction by submitting a completed registration card to the clerk or designated staff member prior to the start of public comments on agenda items. When called, speakers may proceed to the podium, state their name and trustee area, and speak for the allotted time. The amount of time will be announced by the board president before the first speaker begins. and will not exceed three minutes. How many speakers do we have tonight?

We have 20 speakers, but 35 items collectively.

We've never done that. Yeah, we've never done that before. Okay. Okay. We've never done items.

We've always had speakers.

So it will be three minutes per speaker.

First, we have Peter Hall with two items. Next is Joshua Hall with two items. And after will be Dale Broom.

Regarding parental notification, we've talked about this policy before. Most of the critics who are against it are saying that this policy will force the school to out students who are members of the LGBTQ community and These students are not being outed because everybody at the school already knows that they're gay or bi or Trans or whatever. It's only their parents that don't know and their parents should be informed if their child is changing anything about their status and the So I don't know why people are claiming that this policy will out students because their friends know, teachers know, the administrators know. The only people who don't know are the parents and they should be kept informed. And the other policy that I want to talk about Because these policies should be combined. The no deception policy, we shouldn't even have to have that written in as a policy. Teachers and administrators just should not be lying to parents either by commission or by omission. They shouldn't be lying by what they say and they shouldn't be lying by... neglecting to mention pertinent facts. So teachers and administrators should obviously not be lying to parents already. We shouldn't have to have a policy saying don't lie to parents. And for the doctor who said it, but might have been Socrates or anyway, old philosopher once said that the more rules a society has, the more criminal it has become.

Thank you, Peter. Welcome, Joshua.

It's been said that personnel is policy. And I'd like to, as my brother, combine the parental notification policy with the no deception policy. What I mean by personnel as policy, we wouldn't even need to be discussing the parental notification policy or the no deception policy in relation to a child's gender identity or sexual orientation. And sexual orientation typically was discovered after puberty, preferably in later teenage or adult years, and without any outside interference, nine times or eight times out of 10, people go biologically straight. It's only through interference that they go homosexual and even trans and stuff, without interference, 1% of children naturally become homosexual. We have an abundance of LGBTQ plus teachers and school administrators and officials. If we were to purge the schools of all LGBTQ plus educators and officials, then the parental notification policy and no deception policy would be redundant. It's been the policy for decades to have a parental notification policy in the event of a change in a child's health, like they suffer a catastrophic injury at a sporting event, or... they suffer an illness in class and the parents are notified. But the notification policy is in strict relation to the child's gender and sexual orientation. And it would be redundant if we purged the schools of all LGBTQ plus personnel. The government has been doing that for decades in the reverse with Christians. and social and political conservatives, so there's no reason why we can't do it.

Thank you, Joshua.

Welcome, Dale. Dale Broom, Area 1. I also want to urge the school board to pass regulations this parental notification policy as well as this no deception policy. You know, for four years now, we've been coming to the board asking for a common sense parental rights supporting policy that would notify parents if a student is gender transitioning and not to withhold that information. And now the courts have really come full circle and in support of parental rights. And of course, we've had most recently the United States Supreme Court rendering their decision on Mirabella v. Bonte that says that California gender secrecy policy likely violates the parental rights under the free exercise clause and the due process clause of our Constitution. They also found that it was unlawful regarding FERPA laws that have already been previously passed at the federal level. And then even since that Supreme Court decision now, there have been two appellate court decisions, U.S. appellate court decisions, that have also reiterated this concept that we cannot keep secrets from parents and that we need to notify them. And the first being that in the Third Circuit, which was Doe v. Pine Richland School District, and also more recently in the Ninth Circuit out here on the West Coast, Huntington Beach v. Newsom. And these both also, in agreement with what has been decided by the Supreme Court, felt that withholding notification to parents was unconstitutional and unlawful. So it's really time for our district to strike the current secrecy policy that we have in our policies because it really undermines parental rights. It really undermines good faith and communication with parents, and we need to get this taken care of so that we're not in violation with the Constitution and with federal law. I also want to just reiterate, too, that the courts are really beginning to clearly identify parental rights as a very, very important right. And I think they're eventually going to call it an inalienable right. Inalienable right in the sense that it is a God-given right that cannot be stripped from the parents by the state. And that is very, very important because much like is declared in the Declaration of Independence, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there are other inalienable rights. And this is one of those, the parental rights. And so AB 1955, which is the basis for our secrecy policy that's in our school policies is really terribly flawed. Because number one, it undermines those parental rights and inalienable rights that are given to us. And it also is based on, it's really in conflict with the laws of nature. And that transgenderism is a recognizable, distinct gender. So it's time for us to take care of this and change our policy and make sure that we respect parental rights and support these common sense ideas. Thank you.

Thank you, Dale. Next we have Abigail J., Jennifer J., and Rachel Ugly, each with one item.

Good evening, board members. When reading through the so-called no-deception policy and the laws it mentions, one thing in particular stood out to me. Well, besides the extremely hurtful nature of it. In the first paragraph, you quote California Ed Code 51101. You state that parents have the right and should have the opportunity to be informed by the school and to participate in the education of your children. You then have three little dots. So for the uneducated among you, that means you only quoted a small section of the law. The full text of the law then provides various ways schools are expected to follow this. I will paraphrase them now and ask you to think about which of these gods are fathered by outing students against their will. Parents should be able to observe the classroom and the curriculum. Parents should be able to meet with their child's teachers or volunteer at the school or be on a parent's advisory committee. Parents should be informed if their child is absent or at risk of being held back. Parents should have access to the school rules and policies, academic standards, and their child's academic progress, including their test scores. Parents should be able to ask for their child to go to a certain school. Parents should be informed of any psychological testing their child may undergo and their right to opt out. Parents should be able to view their child's school records and question anything in them. That part, however, does not state that parents must be notified with every single change to their records, neither does the Supreme Court case or any of the other cases. And this last one is important, so I will quote it. Parents should be able to, quote, have a school environment for their child that is safe and supportive of learning. So why is such a small section of this law cherry-picked for paragraph one of the policy, when the policy does not further any of the key points of the law, but rather violates aspects of it? I also want to point out another thing. I have read through the entire opinion in Mirabelli v. Bonta, and it does not require you to out students. The lawsuit was initially brought forward due to a school district having a policy that made it so that teachers are not allowed to out students. However, that is not the case in Redlands or almost any other district in California, nor is that what the Safety Act says. The Safety Act does not allow us to require that staff, our students, And also, many administrators and even students are not necessarily aware of every single student being LGBTQ. So even though the policy does only out you to your parents, it also may out you to other people you interact with daily. And in regards to the other policy, put the policy on the agenda. That's a Brown Act violation. Thank you, Abigail. Thank you.

Welcome Jennifer.

The parental notification policy is nothing more than a foresighting policy designed to put some of our most vulnerable students in an unsafe situation. Should parents be aware of what's going on in their children's lives? Absolutely. But that should be something that is between parent and child. It is not our school's job to be informants. Not every child feels safe in their home, and releasing information to parents about a child's decision to go by a different name or set of pronouns at school could be putting that child in danger. The decision to come out to friends and family is a very personal one and should be the choice of the person coming out, not relegated to a teacher or administrator. If a kid is not telling their parents, there's often a reason why. When adults start releasing personal information about students, the students lose their trust in them and what may have been their only safe space where they feel comfortable being themselves no longer is. The policy pretends to be for the safety of all children, but for the kids who already feel safe enough to share this information with their family and friends, It's unneeded. And for the kids who don't feel safe enough to share this information, it's downright dangerous. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer. Welcome, Rachel.

Thank you.

Rachel Ugly, District 1.

I'm appalled at the fact that it took so long for this school board to acknowledge to put on the agenda at the request of not only constituents, but also the trustees. And there is a concern about trying to destroy the family community. If everyone on the board has read, every trustee has made reference, and I like it to be included in the no deception, that the federal educational rights and privacy indicates that a parent, a legal guardian, has every right to reach over the edge, have control or say over the education and what happens when a child thinks to be that they are of a different gender. That it states in a federal law that under the federal law, The family educational right and privacy, it transfers from the parent or legal guardian, he or she may become an eligible student with all rights and is transferred at the age of 18. So legally, we have... children that do not have the ability to really understand and voice how they think about their gender or anything else. Notification that comes from a counselor or when someone is notified, three days is not sufficient. It should be almost immediately within that given day. Because there could be cause, as they're stating in this, that that could do damage to the students. But for a child, we need to be totally aware as soon as possible if there's any consideration of any harm coming to the student. Social culture should not govern with a small percentage that it represents. We have laws on our land. We're a land of laws, a constitution, a bill of rights. You break the law. What happens? I have copies of every code, educational code, for what's included in the no notification. I'm aware that all the trustees and everyone against it surely has read it, understands it, and knows about it. And if they don't know how to be resourceful, then they don't belong on the trustee. So thank you very much. Thank you, Rachel. Thank you, Rachel.

Next, we have Erica Grossman with two items, Aya F. with one item, and Greg Britton with two items. Welcome, Erica.

Hi, Erica Grossman, Area 2.

regarding parental notification. You realize that parents already have the right to know if changes are made to their children's school records, and teachers are not penalized for informing parents. Why is that not enough? What is your goal in requiring schools to notify every parent whenever a student record changes? Do you fully understand the potential consequences of this policy? Students who do not want their parents to know will simply stop sharing that information at school. As a result, students who once felt safe expressing themselves may no longer feel safe doing so. If schools are no longer seen as safe places, some students may stop attending schools altogether. That would only worsen the problem of chronic absenteeism, which could also affect district funding. Are you prepared to take responsibility for that? Another consequence is that this policy could put some students at risk of abuse or homelessness. I understand that many parents want to know every important aspect of their children's lives. However, children also have the right to decide what they share with their parents and when they share it. School should not be stepping into the boundary. Did you tell your parents everything when you were growing up? Most children keep some things private until they are ready to talk about them. For many LGBTQ plus students, coming out with their parents is frightening because they fear rejection. I know people who are physically abused or kicked out of their homes as teenagers after coming out. Do you want that to happen to our students? If a student's abused or kicked out of their home as a result of this policy, what is your plan to protect the student? How does the district plan to respond? And who will be accountable for those outcomes? Your job as school board is to ensure that every student has access to safe learning environment, not to put their lives at risk. Regarding no deception policy, I have one simple question. Why is this such a priority? At the May meeting, Candy said she was happy that the district is not currently lying to parents. She also said the purpose of a no deception policy would be to solidify parental confidence. If the district is already being honest with parents, why is a new policy even being discussed? Superintendent Cabral has also said that our existing policies are sufficient. There are many issues facing our schools that deserve attention and resources right now. Why are we spending time discussing a problem that, by your own statement, does not currently exist? I'm also concerned about where this discussion is heading. Defining deception is not simple. What information would be covered? What would staff be required to report? How would the district determine whether someone was being deceptive? These questions create confusion and could add a significant administrative burden for teachers, staff, and administrators. I'm concerned that a policy like this could create fear and silence among our students. It could also be used to discipline teachers and staff for withholding information from parents, even when they are trying to navigate complicated situations in the best interest of students. This discussion is unnecessary. If the district is already being honest with parents and existing policies are working, let's focus our time and energy on the challenges that actually affect student learning, attendance, and well-being, Even your supporters often say that they want the board to focus on academics, math, and science. It's really disappointing that you think this is a priority while teachers, staff, and parents are worried about what will happen to the district after all the staff layoffs. That's all.

Thank you, Erica. Welcome, Aya.

So hello, my name is Aya. I'm a student, I'm a senior actually at Residence High School, and it's really telling that I have to be here today. So I want to really take my time to frame this discussion in the way that it really is. It's a farce. The far-right people in this room play this back and forth game under this veneer of parental rights, of common sense, and behind it, these policies are only a way to really distract us. to drain our money and our energy away from building practical solutions that equip us students with the tools we need to survive in this changing world. There's nothing sensical about this. So what you are doing with these policies, you are putting roughly 23% of our generation LGBTQ youth who know who they are and their risk of living authentically in fear of destabilizing their livelihoods. You speak of parental rights. However, what about the lived-in conditions of the students? What about their rights? Over 80% of our speakers and board members, Patty and Melissa, understand full well that this is only sabotaging our development as students and as people. When we live in a world where our basic survival is becoming less and less affordable to everyone, we need an education that is equitable. It engages students, sustainable, addresses mental health and physical health problems. It has to be, you know, something that truly empowers us and enables us to become critical thinkers with the capacity to change our world for the better, right? The capacity to really, undermine the rot that exists in our social and political structures, right? That is fascism, economic inequality, right? White supremacy, patriarchy. All these things are problems that are real, right? And we cannot do that if almost a quarter of our generation, of our students, right? Their basic stability is being actively threatened through these policies, right? This force-outing policy, which puts them at the risk of not just like being abused, but they can be kicked out, right? What sort of education setting are you truly bringing here? So for that reason, right, I oppose this policy. It does nothing but makes things worse for us, not just for the queer students, right, but for everyone. through all the legal hurdles that we have to overcome as a result of this, the legal fees. And as a result, I believe that this policy does not meet the interests of our students, of our community, of our families. And we want to center our discussion towards what actually serves our students, what serves our communities. And these policies do not do that.

Thank you, Aya. Welcome Greg.

Thank you. The left always seeks to separate parents from their children. Because if they can't win with the parental generation, then they'll win with the children's generation when they become of age. As I've quoted many times, Abraham Lincoln said that the philosophy in the classroom in one generation becomes the philosophy of government in the next generation. And what we're talking about here is how do you raise a child? Certainly, I don't think anyone up there would claim, yes, leave it to the government, leave it to the schools, and we'll take care of raising your children. Now, some people might like that on this side, but I don't think any of you would agree that that's a good way to raise children. Yet you have the care and custody of the children, what, six hours a day, eight hours a day, maybe longer if they're doing extracurricular activities. You probably have more time, face time with them than their parents do, particularly as they get older. You know, you have dinner, they do their homework and so on, going to this lesson, going to that activity. You guys probably have more time with them. And the parents trust you guys with their children. But you have a constitutional right, it's been upheld repeatedly by the court, to control the education, both morally and academically, of their children. And they can't do that if they don't know what's going on. Would anyone suggest that if a child gets into a fight, you shouldn't tell the parents because the child wouldn't want the parents to know that? Or if a child is using drugs, I don't want my parents to know. Of course the child doesn't want their parents to know. That's exactly why the parents need to know. And what underlies all of this is really the transgender stuff. They want to move, the left here wants to move the child down this transgender path as far as possible before the parents find out. An example of where this happens, and this is way beyond just notification, you're getting beyond your ability of expertise. Yaeli Martinez, as the left likes to say, say her name. She got sent down that path at school. The teachers referred her to the LGBTQ club. Don't tell your parents about that. She was eventually taken from her mother, put into foster care, given all the transgender treatments. Fortunately, putting the wrong hormones into the wrong body. Someone who already has mental problems. She went on the train track and let herself get run over by a train. So when someone has a problem like this, you absolutely, positively want to involve the parents at the earliest possible stage. Nobody loves that child more than his or her parents. Don't cut them out.

Thank you, Greg. Next, we have David with two items, followed by Catherine Appleby with three items, and Mark Laird with three items.

Welcome, Daniel. I mean, David, I'm sorry.

Hi, my name is David Bulldog, and I want to remind you of Education Code 51-101, which states, the parents and the guardians and pupils enrolled in public schools have the right and should have the opportunity as mutual supportive and respectful partners in the education of their children within the public schools. To be informed of the school, be informed by the school, and to participate in the education of their children as followed. There's 16 points, but I want to focus in on one, number 10. to have access to the school records of their child. I would think that means honest records, not one designed to hide records from parents. If I remember correctly, members of this board feared legal repercussions if they passed a parental notification. I suggest that you are opening yourself up to be sued if you do not implement a notification program. Let me explain. I think you might all be familiar with the federal case Mirabelli v. Olson brought by two Escondido teachers who were forced to hide information of the schools aiding transitioning students from their parents. Southern California federal district judge granted a summary judgment for the plaintiffs and entered a permanent injunction that prohibits school from withholding information from parents and requiring adherence to the parents' directive on names and pronouns. California Attorney General Rob Bonta appealed this to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which granted a say, meaning stopping the lower court's rulings, of the injunction pending appeal. expressing procedural concerns about class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and skepticism regarding the merits of the constitutional claim. The plaintiffs then brought that to the Supreme Court of the United States. And in securum, meaning by the Supreme Court as a whole, they vacated, meaning reversed, the Ninth Circuit stay as to the plaintiff concluding the parents seeking religious exemptions are likely to succeed on their free exercise and due process claim. They claimed, among many other cases, the recent Mahmood v. Taylor, allowing parents to have the sole upbringing of the child's religious brief. The courts found that the parents face irreparable harm and that equity favors them. The procedural objections raised by the Ninth Circuit Court were deemed unlikely to prevail. The application to vacate was otherwise denied. Four days after the Supreme Court ruling, March 6th of this year, the California School Board Association issued a report to its members, which I believe you're all members of, Supreme Court strengthened parental notification for gender transition, stating that the court said the lower court ruling upheld And the school board directs the state of California to refrain from permitting or requiring schools to maintain confidential information about students' gender presentation. That is going on from your own school board association. Going on to right, there are no exceptions to the requirement above referring to the court order. So if you happen to be scared of getting sued, I would be scared of not implementing a parental notification policy because one of your staff in your district, and I'm going to go on to general public comment. Thank you. I'll just continue up with this because... Oh, we're not on general yet.

We're still on agenda items.

Okay, so I have to come back. So, yeah. All right, thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Welcome, Catherine. Thanks, board. I'm Katherine Appleby, area four, parent of a RUSD student. My first item is item 13E, the agreement with AK Smiley Public Library Heritage Tours to conduct the fourth grade heritage tours. I was so glad to see this on the agenda for tonight. I remember going on this tour in the early 1990s. I can still drive around town and recite facts from this historical tour. So if you were an RUSD student, you probably have the same experience. But things have changed since I was a student in the 90s. As much as I am a proud born and raised Redlands resident, I acknowledge that RUSD also incorporates Highland and Mentone. and would like to ask if the heritage tours, if they don't even drive into those areas, is there at least aspects acknowledging the heritage of both Highland and Mentone? Since our students come from those areas, I believe it is important that AK Smiley updates their information to include that. I would hate for RUSD to be Redlands only. And to my board members, I know some of you are fairly new to the community. If you've never gone on this tour, I actually think you should because then we can trade notes as we drive down Redland streets about, hey, did you know that building does that and that building was built here? It's great. That's all I have for that comment or that item. Item 20, I'm going to go out of order. I'm going to start with B, the no deception policy.

Now what I'm going to say may sound indelicate, but are you out of your gosh darn minds?

This no deception policy is written at a level that showcases incompetence in writing and illiteracy when it comes to reading the cited codes. This is exactly what we, the public, would expect from a brand new board member. But none of you are brand new board members. There is no reason this should have even come out of somebody's drafts. But apparently, at least one of you is incompetent and illiterate, and the public deserves to know that the sources that you provide are inaccurately cited. Because if you're going to have a discussion, you all need to go, you need to open up legginfo.legislator.ca.gov, click on California laws, and you need to read those codes in their entireties. First, your quote of Ed Code 51101 leaves off the important final two words as follows, and it makes no reference to the 16 listed ways that parents and guardians have the right to be informed by the school and participate in their children's education. And I'm very glad that members of the public have obviously read this code. Out of those 16 ways, only two might be tangentially related to the proposed policy. Number 10, to have access to the school records of their child. And number 15, to question anything in their child's record that the parent feels is an inaccurate or misleading or is an invasion of privacy and to receive a response from the school. Yet whoever drafted this policy couldn't be bothered to read all of that ed code. Or perhaps they did read the entire text and decided it would be better to mislead RUSD families by only using an incomplete sentence from the first paragraph. Dear writer, which one did you choose? This draft states that based on Family Code section 6924, Health and Safety Code section 124260, and Ed Code section 49602C, that they support the statement that the inclusion of parents and guardians is appropriate. While those codes do support the inclusion of parents and guardians, The family health and safety codes explicitly concern themselves with consent by a minor for mental health treatment by a professional person which is defined for an educational setting as a licensed educational psychologist, a credentialed school psychologist, or a licensed professional clinical counselor. Superintendent Cabral and Assistant Superintendent Nakamura-Burek, how many of those professionals does RUSD employ? Ed Code 49602C states that the repeating reporting of confidential information revealed by a minor receiving counseling from a school counselor is only reported when the disclosure is necessary to avert a clear and present danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the pupil or the following other persons living in the school community. Once again, whoever wrote this is either incompetent or is purposefully misleading. For this reason alone, I encourage you to not entertain discussion of it. It's not transparent. And then discussion item 20A. I'm not going to talk about this one at all, except to say this is a Brown Act violation. It was not made available to the public at least 72 hours prior. It was not detailed in the agenda. And as such, the board should table this discussion, add it to the next agenda, and ensure that it is attached to the agenda. Doing anything else is willful, wanton, and reckless conduct in direct violation of the Brown Act and is not befitting a board that claims to believe in transparency and integrity. Thank you, Catherine.

Welcome, Mark.

All right, for my first one, I'm going to talk about 13E. So this one I'm actually really happy to see. Just want to make it really quick. Want to see more things like this. The one thing that I will say though is it does kind of showcase the point though that our students need, for some of our students, they need the opportunity to be taken to the library when that library isn't available on campus. And so I'm glad that we're affording that opportunity for our students that have those barriers. But I just want that to be something that guides us as we talk about library access on campus and going to the public library. We see that even with this field trip, sometimes it's difficult to get students even to the public library, even during school hours, let alone other barriers. So just be mindful of that. I'll move on to my next one, though, of 20A. So this one, honestly, is a hard one for me. Because when I first met my partner, you know, I'm kind of, it's funny, I didn't know that I was spoiled in this way, but apparently I'm kind of crazy for sleeping with six pillows. I think it's very comfortable. But when I first met him, he didn't sleep with any pillows at all. And I didn't really question that too much. I was like, whatever, kind of quirk about him. And the longer that I dated him, I realized it was actually because from the moment that he was forcibly outed from 16, he was forced from his home and had to live in his vehicle from the age of 16 because he was forcibly outed. And so when I met him, literally, he would sleep like Frankenstein. He would literally just flat on the bed, and he was perfectly comfortable with it. I thought he was absolutely insane. Now I have to fight to get back my pillows from him because he knows that that's a basic comfort, right? But that comfort was deprived of him when he was forcibly outed. when he had to leave his home and his family. And it wasn't even just all of his family that he had to leave. He had to leave the family that does love and support him as well as the family that didn't when he made that choice, right? And so I'm very grateful to live the life that I've lived, to not have to have faced that kind of adversity. I'm not going to lie, though, and say that thoughts of that didn't completely keep me up at night. sometimes drive me to suicidal thoughts when I was young, worried about if someone would forcibly out me. And to think, when we talk about policies, it's easy to just go policy, policy, policy. That sounds so bureaucratic. Policies are people. And when we pass a policy like this, what I'm telling you is it's not an if, it's a we will have a situation where someone just like my partner, where they carry that trauma with them, And they're not going to necessarily say it in the obvious ways. They might not ever talk about it or say it, but it's there. And you can see it, and it's tangible. And that injury is why I ask that you please do not bring this policy to light, let alone ignoring the evidence, like fewer than one in three transgender and non-binary youth find that their home is gender-affirming. 28% of LGBTQ youth experience homelessness or housing insecurity, many of whom are kicked out and have to leave after they come out to their families who are not affirming. In addition to that, when we talk about how we have to follow the law, The law isn't clear on this and the law is still changing and developing. We're going to pass something now that might need to be refined very, very soon. I'm going to continue with 20B. And so it's still on those same lines because it still has the same impact for that policy. And so we do talk about like, oh, yeah, law, right? Well, New Jersey's Attorney General noted in 2023 that forced outing policies violate the state's law against discrimination. because they expressively forgot transgender, gender non-conforming, and non-binary students. Even just earlier, there was a member of the public that was calling for every single person that works within public schools, myself included, by his logic, be eradicated from working with students, just for being LGBTQIA, right? And these aren't little things, y'all. This is stuff I've had to live with my whole life, but also it's something that when we talk about something like that, you didn't talk about the fact that under California's state law, I have the protection in my workplace to not be discriminated against based on my gender identity expression and sexual orientation, right? That's a piece that we need to factor in one for our people that work within the district. We can't pass policies like this, especially when they're facing our employees, right? But I would like our students to be treated with that same respect and basic human right that we would treat an adult in the state of California. especially when we know or may not know that outing a student could result in them being homeless, abused. I've known people who have almost been murdered for coming out, right? And I know, like, We just talk about this like it's policies, but like I said, these are real things that I've been through, people that I know have been through, and that we will be subjecting our youth to if we pass policies like these. So I urge you, there's so many statistics, I honestly had so many that I could have read out, but I'm just too tired to do it, and I feel like when we're not listening to the PTA, we're not listening to the National Association of Counselors, we're not listening to all of the experts on this, and I've said these statistics time and time again, I just don't know what we can do to better protect our students than to not pass a policy like this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mark. Next, we have Michael Paisner with three items, John Berry with two items, and Kevin O'Connor with two items. Welcome, Michael.

Thank you. Let's start with AI. I want to acknowledge Mr. Hill's presentation. I thought it was a great start. I'm familiar with AI. I actually did my master's thesis longer ago than I care to admit. on machine learning. So you're right. Some of the points I want to highlight, there is no avoiding AI. Whether we like it or not, it's there. People are going to find a way to use it. I prefer we establish a framework and start dealing with it. So it's a good start. I share your concerns, bias, overly and sometimes inappropriately positive responses, but also quality. I have plenty of experience of getting responses that are either incorrect or just irrelevant, and I think people need to understand that those are some of the risks about AI. I think in order to use a tool responsibly, you have to understand its limitations. And I found one of the best ways to find some of the limitations of AI, ask it, find a case where it actually gives you a wrong answer and dig into it. Figure out why it gave you a wrong answer or a biased answer. Because when you start seeing the resources it pulled and why, that gives you a lot more experience and it makes you more able to use that tool effectively. So I'd encourage that as a good starting first lesson. Before you start using AI, find a case where it got it wrong and understand why. And I do want to highlight the risk, particularly in the education setting. We don't want AI to replace critical thinking. We want it to be an input into the critical thinking process. So I like the levels. I think that's a good starting place. The tools are still maturing. I think you're gonna have to iterate a lot on these policies as you start to implement them, see where they work, see where there's shortcomings. Just be prepared to keep going back and refining them. It's gonna be a long process. I find AI beneficial, I use it, but I try and keep my eyes open as to the good and the bad of it. So thank you for that starting place. All right, moving on, parental notification. So here we are, summer in Redlands, discussing more culture war policies based on lies. Let's talk about the real agenda of parental notification. You want outing trans kids to be normalized so that trans people feel pressure to hide themselves, and you don't have to have that uncomfortable moment of not knowing which category to put someone in. Male, female, you feel awkward not being able to put a label on someone, and that's what you want to avoid. What are the real effects of a forced outing policy on students? For most, it means nothing because more than 99% are not trans. And even for most trans kids, it means nothing because their parents already know who their kids are, support them, and love them just as they are. There are only a handful of trans kids whose parents don't know And for those kids, they will have to hide who they are at school under such a policy or face devastating consequences at home. There are no good outcomes from forced outing. Of course, to get around California law, you don't actually call it forced outing. You are notifying parents of record changes. But your shift in language has consequences you haven't thought through, which balloons our bureaucracy. Are you really going to send a letter home every time James signs his homework as Jim? Are you going to keep a database of approved nicknames for every student? Your rallying cry used to be, we don't co-parent with the government. But that is exactly what you are trying to do here. The hypocrisy of this policy is absolutely staggering. You are now the government, and you are trying to intervene in the relationship between a student and their parent. By not admitting to this hypocrisy, you are either deceitful or incompetent, and in either case, you are unfit to be sitting in those chairs. I urge you to skip this discussion of parental notification and get back to solving real problems like enhancing student success, achieving smaller class sizes, addressing layoffs of critical staff, enhancing teacher safety, better services for special ed, and improving financial stability. Those are all topics worthy of discussion. I also echo the previous comment. This is a Brown Act violation. It wasn't on the published agenda in the timeline required. You should not be discussing this at all this evening. All right. Last one. No deception. If you want an example of how Ms. Olson and Ms. Wilson thrive on conflict and chaos, I couldn't think of a better example than a policy titled No Deception. We all want and expect the district to be truthful, but rather than have a policy that promotes honesty and integrity, this policy starts with the premise that bad things like deception are the norm. The real agenda of a no-deception policy is so that Candy and Jeanette could fulfill their deep-seated need to play the hero, and they can only do that if they have a villain. There is no villain here, so they made one up. The school district is lying and deceiving parents. Please. This policy casts teachers and the school district as villains. The true goal of this policy is to divide us, to enrage us, to put us at each other's throats. The teachers, the staff, the administrators that I speak to care about kids. They want parents informed and engaged, and they act with integrity and honesty. This policy does not build on that. It undermines it. By casting our teachers and the district as deceptive, you lower the morale of our staff, divide us, and harm our district. This is just another example of a culture war policy that accomplishes nothing except add bureaucracy and marks the school board as the most dysfunctional and inefficient in Redlands history. Shame on you, Ms. Rendler, for sowing this division and mistrust with another culture war discussion. So I will repeat my previous statement. Let's skip discussions of culture war policies and get back to solving real problems, enhancing student success, achieving smaller class sizes, addressing layoffs of critical staff, enhancing teacher safety, better services for special ed, and improving financial stability. Michelle, haven't you learned? There is no appeasing crazy. Stop trying.

Thank you, Michael.

Thank you. You know, and as Dale said earlier, the Supreme Court of the United States and two appellate courts have made it clear that this school district must enact the policies about rights of parents to be informed and that administrators cannot deceive parents in any way, shape, or form. Here's a very alarming sentence, and it's from your no deception. Thanks for printing these out in advance, by the way. This is an amazing sentence. RUSD and its employees shall at all times be truthful and honest and not misrepresent, either directly or by omission, to any parent or guardian any school-related undertakings and information that affects their child's education and well-being. Right? Why do we need a policy to enact what is common sense? Why do we need the Supreme Court to intervene what should be basic morality? I elect school board members to make these common sense decisions. I do not elect bureaucrats. I do not elect union members. I certainly don't elect any of these crack librarians to do whatever the heck they want. So by enacting these two policies... What, in effect, this board will remind the bureaucrats that they run the school district and the bureaucrats don't? Thank you.

Thank you, John. Welcome, Kevin.

It's good to be here, pastor of the Ark Church. Family is such a high priority. It's the first institution that was created by God, is the family. And so when I look at our constitutional rights, notice the three. The best to raise and the middle one, nurture and educate the child. I believe that means that the family, the parents, have the number one role or position in all three of these. according to the Constitution. What seems as I go through and Boy, I know you guys are dealing in a unique world, but I think simple does do better. When it comes to the physical, it seems as like you use the wording of immediately parents will be. But when it comes to the emotional and the mental well-being, we have a shared responsibility, and it seems like the parent moves into a different position other than number one. It's like someone else is going to determine when the parents could be brought in, especially as the key word that comes up over and over again, suicide. Do you know in the last 10 plus years, that has been the mode for schools to be able to convince students that are minors that they need something. They need drugs. They need something to help them with their gender to get where they need to be, all before parents were ever notified, if ever notified. So my question is, if we have the constitutional right not only to raise but also to nurture and then to educate parents, How often do we slip into a second position or a third position or no position at all? This is a very dangerous thing. This is why society is crumbling. The first institution God made was the family so that the family would be able to know how to help their children grow. I know that's the best aspect of how it should work and that it doesn't work in a lot of homes. So that you guys have taken positions and you're wording in here. about the emotional and the abuse areas and the suicidal area, you actually go to the realm of being able to say that only those that are licensed to do certain things, and yes, the parents are going to be notified somewhere. The immediate word's never used. So is this still the slippery slope? I get another three minutes, so I'm just letting that sink in. Is it the slippery slope? I believe it is. I believe this is what's hurting us in raising our families, in being able to be, what, the nurturers of our family.

Excuse me. Kevin, are you on your last item?

I had two.

Are you on your last one?

Oh, so, yeah. So I've got to move to the second one and then slip this in? Okay. So this is where omission comes in and the things that are deceptive out there. And I see that connected so much with the first part of the policy that if you're not... if you're not being upfront, if you're not being straightforward, if you're trying to just color it so that you think you actually have a position that you could omit certain things or color it in a certain way because you talked to the student and the student said, oh yeah, don't tell them that. Wow, you've just become... in partnership with a minor in parents' households to omit things, to not tell the truth. This is part of the family. It's supposed to teach our kids what is truth. Education, it's the, again, going back to the Constitution and its omission, it is our responsibility that they get educated properly. And so if you put omissions and different things out there because you have this inside track with the student, You just tore apart the structure that's the first institution that we're given as a gift, the family. It's time to get past the rhetoric of progressives and conservatives and get back to the foundation. What's a healthy family? Go back to the Constitution. Quit omitting. Start doing allow the parents to know that they are the ones that are over all three areas. So in my last minute, I didn't just bring the problem. Use AI. Get a notification aspect in. that could, when you sign up your child for school, you sign up for the notification thing, and that AI could send out any change, anything, and nothing be omitted. Put it out there. Get your system together. We're advancing as a society, but we're not in how we are communicating to our families. The omission is, goes with the first portion of the whole portion tonight, is that you guys choose when it's right to bring the family in. You're breaking the Constitution when you do that. Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin. Next we have Jeff Pogge with one item, Pat Molnar with two items, Valerie Tabor with two items.

welcome Jeff good evening board Is this audible? And the staff for attending and helping us out here, thank you very much. I'm going to speak on item 20A. I'm in Ms. Rendler's district. Number one. What is wrong with this is that it turns the classroom into a pulpit. That is not the place of the classroom. The classroom is to educate. The classroom is to devote information. The classroom is to assist people in learning. This is comical if you think, oh, my parents got informed that Jeff had a little bit of a problem with the Pythagorean theorem. This is the absurdity that you're asking for. Number two, you turn this, if you enact this, implement this policy, you turn the classroom into a police state. Imagine, we already know that educators are in danger of being outed for being too liberal. We have laws that support conservative attacks on liberal teachers. Now imagine this, that you get a kid tells his parents, oh, Billy told the teacher that he wanted to be called Susie, and you didn't report it. Just imagine this insanity. It's craziness. And then another one, ask Chino Valley how this is working out for them. Ask Temecula how this is working out for them. People are citing that this is their legal right to do this. Not the way it's written now. And the last thing I want to talk about is classrooms work on healthy trust between students and teachers. This I know from having taught decades and ending up in teaching in Juvenile Hall. How many kids did I have in juvenile hall who turned to crime because they'd been thrown out of their houses? I can't count all the numbers, but I know a few at least. At least a few. I know one kid, he kind of helped out the other kids who'd been thrown out by their parents. For what reason? And a lot of these kids ended up being abused by their so-called caregivers when they were referred to... being raised by the state because their parents, these people want their parents to be involved. These guys' parents hurt them. These parents detracted from their healthy and well-being. This is absurd policies. Do not implement these. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff.

Welcome, Pat.

Pat Molnar, now in Area 2, here to explain why parental notification and your no-deception policies are both wrong-headed and should not be followed. First of all, the concept is understandable. Parents should know what's going on with their kids. That comes from a healthy relationship that you build with your kids, not by legislating what teachers should do, turning us into informers. You And like one of the other people said, am I going to have to vet all the juniors and the Cassies instead of Cassandras? It's an undue burden on what we do. Yeah, not every kid is out to their classmates. Not everybody knows. And you want us to out them. You want us to make that obvious. I will tell you from kids that have been in my LGBTQ club that the statistics are clear, and I've seen it, and things that kids have said themselves, unprompted, because there is no pipeline. Unlike somebody said, the statistics and the science are clear that homelessness, kids being kicked out, would you kick out your kids if they told you they were LGBTQ? I hope not. But not all parents would. There are parents that would do that. Homelessness, suicide. I might have lost Rowan if I hadn't. decided, even though I was at that point not sure about it, if I hadn't said, let me think about it and trusted my kid and I was there for my kid, even though I didn't get what they were going through. Think about your own children. Think about the people who stand by them. Yes, three. We do not try to separate kids from their families. I've spent 31 years teaching at Redlands High School, the same school, with integrity, with professionalism. It disgusts me the way some people are denigrating teachers and librarians in this room. Four, yes, the parents should be working on relationships with their own children. My own kids, they trusted me with their journeys because I built a relationship. They share with me. Morality is the parent's responsibility. It is not our responsibility. And so is creating a relationship with the children. Do not legislate us into that role. Finally, I agree with other speakers. that there are underlying motives that have nothing to do with supporting children. Part of it is creating fear. Part of it is creating distrust of teachers and professionals. And I've heard some of the language used. I've heard reported conversations that have happened. Please know that this fear that you guys are trying to create, this wedge, certain side of this room is trying to create here, it is wrongheaded. Second, the no deception policy. Here's a question. When did you stop beating your wife? No, sir, just answer the question. Do you see the problem here with this question? The premise is false. I haven't been beat. No, sir, answer the question. Another thought of this bad assumption policy, World War II, Japanese Americans, not German Americans like my parents, my grandparents, were pulled away from their family, even five-year-olds. What danger is a five-year-old Japanese American child going to do? And then they had to sign loyalty pledges. Loyalty pledges. And then give up their citizenship, basically be stateless people. Where's the justice in that? Kind of reminds me of somebody in the room who created a Muslim pledge. And that's an assumption that is being made, that you are being deceptive. So in this policy, the assumption is that teachers and other professionals here are being deceptive. So we have to say, oh, no, I'm not being deceptive. And that puts that in their mind. This is like some garbage here. We do the best we can. If you've gone into public education in the board, hopefully you have a little bit of trust in the professionals that are here, what we are educated on. I'm not going to go and tell you that you're using the wrong number of CCs in your job or you're doing the wrong clinical technique with the people you're counseling. I don't know, because that's not my job. But daily we face the denigration of people that you guys set off on us. Furthermore. in eroding the positions of the trust that we hold in our communities for the cynical of reason, it helps you paint yourself, as somebody else said, as heroes, to save you from these pedophiles, from these groomers, from all these other things that you see being cited here. It is increasingly clear, I want you to know, to the people that vote, the people that pay attention, the people that are not buying into the very evident bigotry that is flying around this room, and the state of our district. that these are lies and these are actually destroying the district, not building it up. Not building up families because making us into a police state with your children is not helping anybody. It is destroying the trust in the classroom necessary for us to do our jobs and teach. I remember, for example, talking about honesty, someone in here saying that, oh, this extra meetings, the book bands, they're not going to raise the budget. And look what happened to our legal fees. Doubled in the year. Do the smart thing. Do the wise thing. Don't pass these.

Thank you, Pat. Thank you. Welcome, Valerie.

Thank you. I was told by my wife that I should play the cancer wife card. So I'm going to say that these topics are so important to me that despite my wife having chemo earlier today, I'm still here to talk about it. Less so about parental notification because I don't really think you'll listen to me anyways as my representative who keeps calling me an opponent on all her social media posts. However, I think it is worth talking about AI, which is my first topic. And Mr. Hill, you said you didn't want to get into it, but I want to get into it. We do have an obligation and a... requirement to protect the environment. We have an obligation to look at the cost of technology and say whether it is appropriate to implement. We have a literacy crisis, we have a critical thinking crisis, and you want to implement AI. I cannot understand why AI, especially a paid program when we are already struggling with financial issues, is something that you are prioritizing. And honestly, since you've already purchased this, it really sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse. You bought the program and now you're trying to justify the cost after staff were not using it. So why are you thrusting this upon our students? Why is this something that they need to have access to? And I understand you put a very nice PowerPoint together with all of these different levels, all of these different strategies, and while I am ethically opposed to use of AI, period, I understand why employees and staff may want to use it. I think it can be very helpful. I don't think that young impressionable minds should have access to it. And I certainly don't think that it should be normalized by purchasing this, spending money on it, supporting this tech bubble, which continues to demonstrate that it is wildly disproportionate to the use. It is being put into so many different employment opportunities and jobs and people are being laid off only to be rehired again when AI is not able to do the jobs that they replace them to. So I really don't understand why you are prioritizing this. It is not worth the cost, not only not worth the cost because of the impact it will have and continue to have on critical thinking and literacy, but it will also drastically impact our environment. It has those data centers that it uses use a huge amount of water. They impact the communities around them in so many detrimental ways. This is not something you should be supporting. Including it in our media literacy? Absolutely. Using it in the classroom? Absolutely not. My second topic is, of course, parental notification. I think that you should be listening to the lovely young ladies that have come up here meeting after meeting to tell you about their lived experiences as trans women. Aya and Abigail have come up here and so expertly argued and explained the impacts of these policies, and you refuse to listen. And it's really frustrating, not only because we know why this is being brought up, but because you don't seem to want to acknowledge that at all. Of course you don't. The parental notification, your policies all include notification for all the different areas. Last time I saw it, since it's not on the actual attachments in this board meeting. Last time I saw this, you had suicidal ideation, you had notification for bullying. All of those are included in your other policies. It doesn't make sense why you are adding this whole other new policy unless you are adding onto it for a specific reason, which we know is about outing trans students because all of your supporters have come and said that. You actively campaigned on it. you disproportionately spend all of your time on these culture war issues and these personal vendettas of discrimination that most of your social media, most of your time here and the debates here are spent on issues that impact the LGBTQ community, community members, students, and staff in negative ways. And I'm curious, how much money do you want to spend on this? because i just got contacted by the third party no negotiator that you're that you hired to look into all these complaints how many more do you want as many speakers already said these issues are not settled by law yet the law is still ever evolving and i think when you are talking about how we need to focus on students and keep it student focused in all of our discussions somehow not somehow it is intentionally being left out the rights of students students are not just the property of their parents students are not they they do not leave their rights at the school door they have their own rights and their own ability to form relationships and share information Whether someone has a different name or different pronouns has nothing to do with their education. And therefore, it should not be something that you are bothering parents or getting in the middle of these relationships. It makes no sense. However, if you want another lawsuit, you want another pay more money to the third party negotiator, be my guest. Thank you, Valerie.

Valerie, I'm sorry. Valerie, please give Rue my best, and my prayers are with her.

This is a difficult time. Next, we have Bea with two items and Greg Abdouche with one item.

Welcome, Bea. Thank you.

I'll wing it.

I wanted to say first in regards to the AI proposal, there was a question of how we would handle plagiarism. And one of the things that I have seen implemented in schools is that they use Google Docs, which is a word processor that's part of the Google suite, and a lot of times is something that's accessible to students who are using Chromebooks. And there is an add-on that allows you to see the track changes over time. So you can actually watch the student write the essay, like back, just by watching the track changes. So it's a real easy way to see whether or not somebody is using AI inappropriately because if you suddenly see just like a blank document and then suddenly there's an essay, they copied and pasted it from someplace and it was probably AI. And so some schools have had students submit a link to the Google Doc so that the teacher can then see the track changes. And there is obviously the possibility that students will just transcribe what AI has already created for them. Theoretically, if they are transcribing that, they are at least potentially absorbing the information that was included in the AI document and improving their typing skills. So if this is something that is a concern, and as Jason mentioned, the... the AI is getting better and it's harder to tell whether or not it is AI or it's plagiarism. And I know there are even students, when the quality of the essay is of a certain caliber, sometimes the tools that are available to flag if they think it's AI will sometimes accidentally trip. and say, yeah, this is most likely AI because of the way that the language is written. And so this is a way to ensure that there's some quality control. And hopefully that would be a tool that would be useful to the district. I don't know, usually, I don't know if our students get Chromebooks, but if they do, then this is a tool that's available to them and the teachers should be able to use it as well. So... So I wanted to move on, if that's okay, to the agenda items, the no deception apology and the parental rights policy.

Amen.

And in November, we will make sure that our voices are heard and we remove these policies permanently. Thank you.

Thank you, Bea. Welcome, Greg.

Thank you very much. Hello, board. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. Greg Abdosh. I represent all the districts because I'm running for the California State Assembly for the 45th. And I've been sitting back there and I looked at your guys' sign. Redlands Unified School District. Excellence in education. I think it's interesting that in 2026 we're still having these conversations about parent notification. I commend you guys for protecting parents and protecting students. I commend the teachers for teaching in an environment that we've given them this year. I think we have amazing teachers here in California. I really do. And I think it's sad that we have an education system that's failing. I remember back when my kids first started going to school, the conversation always in the beginning of the school year was, We need to make sure parents are involved. We need to make sure parents are here. We need to make sure you get your kids rest, you feed them, you get them to bed early on time, you get their homework done, you get them here. We need parents engaged because we want to make sure our kids are educated. Ten years' worth of statistics. You can Google this. Parents that are actively involved have higher reading scores and math scores, better attendance, better classroom behavior, higher graduation rates, more likely to attend college. If education is our key, then maybe we should consider that. And I want to say my heart goes out to some of the stories that we heard tonight about the parents that aren't involved in their kid's life. I, thank God, was very involved in my kid's life. But I would suggest that if we have children in Redlands Unified that are scared of their parents, that's the real issue we need to deal with. We need to make sure that education is the first thing we do. And if we have children in our education system that are scared of their parents, we have several professionals I know that are involved in the school system that can help with that. Let's deal with that issue. But let's make sure educating our kids is the number one thing. Congratulations and thank you.

Thank you, Greg. We're done.

Okay, we're moving on to board committee reports. Or was it for an agenda item?

You had it in the, you scanned the wrong QR code, but she did have it for the student, the policy. Okay. Yes. What is your name?

Welcome.

Thank you. Oops. This topic of parental notification and new deception is disingenuous. It is a thinly veiled attempt to promote a false narrative that is part of the political agenda. Transgender high school youth are less than 0.5% nationwide. The overall transgender population of all ages is 1% nationwide in America. This notification is not about protecting anyone. The percentage of 0.5 is extremely small for our high school kids, and most of these students have parents and friends who support them and are aware. 86.7% who identify as female, their family knows about it, and 81% of males, their family knows about it. When has this topic of transgender youth become such an issue? One of the problems I have is the funding cuts that have cut all the research for these programs that have been going on for 10 years. So without knowing the exact statistics, you can just pretty much say anything. It appears that the current administration that we have in office that this issue is truly not about a problem or concern. It's about politics. Consider the documented NATO meeting at the White House on March the 12th, 2025. In a far-ranging conversation with NATO Secretary Mark Rutte and many others, our President stated this to the leadership present. I saw this morning where one of them is pretty well known once arguing, fighting like crazy over men being able to play in women's sports. I said, yeah, I thought that was tried already. I thought that was about a 95, I think it's a 95% issue. But in a way, I want them to keep doing it because I don't think they can win a race. I mean, and I tell the Republicans, I said, don't bring that subject up because there's no election right now. But about a week before the election, bring it up because you can't lose. You know, and make everything transgender this, transgender that. You know, they have bad politics. But one thing, they stick together, you know. This is documented. on the NATO side of him saying that. So I think that's very telling. The board should focus more on the dangers of AI and chat GBT and focus on the development of strict safety guidelines, because that's going to impact more kids than what we're talking about with this transgender policy, the outing policy. Our school district, do not let the school district fall prey to political agendas that are under the guise of helping our students and our families. Do not make Redlands School District and our town known as a district that can easily be manipulated for political gain. And I really feel strongly about this. So thank you for listening. Thank you.

Okay, now moving on to board committee reports. Melissa, do you have anything?

I forgot my car wrapped one.

We didn't meet.

Nothing yet.

No meeting. Okay. Superintendent's report. Mr. Cabral, do you have anything? No report. I conceded my time to the AI presentation.

All right. Moving on to business services consent items. Mr. Hill, any changes or additions?

No changes or additions tonight.

We have a motion to approve business services consent items as listed under 11A and 11L. All moved. Second. Thank you, Candy. Thank you, Patty. Any discussion? All right. I'll call for the vote.

Just one moment. Jason, did you happen to find the resume for Dr. Doblinsky?

I did not get it yet, no.

Have we used him before?

We have not used him before. Palm Springs used him, and then we did a reference check on that. Okay.

I was curious on E, Jason, with the various and numerous transportation companies we use, do we get record of their driving records, safety records, et cetera? I know recently another school district had a big problem with finding out that the transportation service they were using had a horrible safety record.

Yeah, we do when we put out the bids. And there's a new law that just got passed that requires these companies to follow similar protocols as school districts in terms of the hiring and the monitoring of those drivers as well.

And the safety of the vehicles?

Yeah.

You ready to call the vote?

Motion carried, 5-0.

Thank you. All right. No business services action items tonight. We're moving on to educational services consent items. Motion to approve. Oh, wait. Is there any changes or additions? Mrs. Buckmiller.

Yes, actually, I do have a correction under educational services consent item 13E. On the agenda, there is a typo. It should say August 1st, 2026, not August 1st, 2021. A corrected copy is on the dais for you. And then in the actual agreement with the Smiley Library, there's also a typo on a date. It should read July 15th, 2027. A corrected copy is also on the dais for you.

Do we have a motion to approve educational services consent items as corrected and listed under 13A through 13G? I'll move. Second. Melissa, thank you, Patty. Any discussion?

Yeah, just happy to see the Heritage Tours continue.

Motion carried, 5-0.

Now, action items under educational services. Mrs. Beckmiller, any changes or additions?

No changes on action items. Thank you.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to approve educational services action items as listed under 14-A and 14-B? I'm off. And candy.

Thank you.

Any discussion? All right. We'll call for the vote.

Motion carried. 5-0.

Do I have a motion to approve submittal of the following school plans for student achievement, or SPSAs, for the 2026-2027 school year, including Title I funded school-wide programs at eligible high schools, Arroyo Verde Elementary, Bryn Mawr Elementary School, Crafton Elementary School, Cram Elementary School, Franklin Elementary School, Highland Grove Elementary School, Judson and Brown Elementary School, Kimberly Elementary School, Kingsbury Elementary School, Lagonia Elementary School, Mariposa Elementary School, McKinley Elementary School, Mentone Elementary School, Mission Elementary School, Smiley Elementary School, Victoria Elementary School, Beatty Middle School, Clement Middle School, Cope Middle School, Moore Middle School, Citrus Valley High School, Orangewood High School, Redlands East Valley High School, and Redlands High School and Redlands E-Academy. So moved.

A second.

Patty, thank you. Melissa? Any discussion on anything in that long read? All right, we'll call for the vote.

Motion carried, 5-0.

Moving on to human resources consent items. Do we have a motion to approve human resources consent items as listed under 15A through 15D? I'll move. I'll second. Any discussion? Have something? No? Okay. We'll call for the vote. Oh, I apologize, Mrs. Bruick. I forgot to ask you if you had any changes on that one. I'm sorry.

I'm doing it.

All right, moving on to human resources action items. Oh, sorry, President Rudler, motion carried 5-0. Oh, I'm sorry. I got ahead of myself. Moving on, human resources action items. Mrs. Bruick, any changes or additions?

No, thank you.

I have a motion to adopt resolution number 2, 2026-2027, approving employment of Catherine Kahn. Is that how you say her name, Kahn? Effective the 2026-2027 school year, based on approval by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, waived Ed Code Section 442065.3 credential requirements.

So moved.

Second. Patty, thank you. Melissa? Any discussion? I just have a question. Is that how you say her last name? Con? Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll call for the vote.

Motion carried, 5-0.

Motion to adopt resolution number 3, 2026-2027, approving employment of Crystal Toy, effective the 2026-2027 school year, based on approval by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, waived Ed Code section 442065.3, credential requirements.

I'll move.

Second. Melissa, thank you. Candy? Any discussion? I'll call for the vote.

Motion carried, 5-0.

Motion to approve amendment to contract of employment for Executive Cabinet Member Lisa Nakamura-Bruick. I've never said that part of your name before. I'm sorry. Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources.

So moved.

I'll second. Thank you, Melissa. Any discussion? Call for the vote.

Motion carried. 5-0.

Motion to approve amendment to contract of employment for Executive Cabinet Member Patricia Buckmiller, Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services. So moved. I'll second. Thank you, Patty. Any discussion? We'll call for the vote. Motion carried, 5-0. Motion to approve amendment to contract of employment for Executive Cabinet Member Rudy Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Compliance.

I'm a second. Melissa, that was you, then Patty. Melissa, then Patty. Yeah, thank you.

All right, any discussion? All right, we'll call for the vote. Motion carried. 5-0. Motion to approve amendment to contract of employment for Executive Cabinet Member Jason Hill, Deputy Superintendent, Business Services. So moved. I'll second. Thank you, Melissa. Any discussion? Call for the vote.

Motion carried.

5-0. Thank you very much. Moving on to public participation. Public comments are permitted upon submission of a completed registration card.

Did you forget one?

We're pulling that item.

That's right, we pulled it.

Public comments are permitted upon submission of a completed registration card prior to the start of public participation. This is not a forum for debate. Policy concerns will be referred to the superintendent. When called, speakers may proceed to the podium, state their name and trustee area, and speak for the allotted time. The amount of time will be announced by the board president before the first speaker begins and will not exceed three minutes.

How many speakers? Ten. Ten? Three minutes. First up, we have Michael Paisner, followed by Peter Hall, then Josh Hall.

I'll come back, Michael.

May I come back? Ms. Olson is relevant to my comment. Is that okay? Can I pass it to someone else and come back? She just left the room.

Oh, do you want to switch with number two person?

Can someone else go and I'll come back? Is that okay? That's fine.

That's fine. Who's next? Christine?

Here.

Welcome back.

Okay, so I'd just like to say that a bunch of the statements in here were outright lies. A bunch of these speakers who were arguing against the parental notification policy and the no deception policy are acting like we don't know what nicknames are. Are you going to notify the parents if they have a son named James who uses Jim on an essay or a piece of homework? We know what nicknames are, thank you, and nicknames are not the same as changing your name to something else, changing your name to a name that is usually used by people of the opposite sex, like a boy... If I changed my name to... Daniela or something like that, or Rosemary, that would not be the same as me using a nickname of my name. My name is Peter, and sometimes people call me Pete. So using Pete is not the same as outright changing my name and pretending to be something that I'm not. These people are liars. They are also crazy. Michael Pizner said, stop trying to appease crazy. Well, yeah, I agree with him. Stop trying to appease crazy. They're crazy. Thank you Peter.

I want to talk about the death of the political moderate in both the Democrat side and the Republican side. I believe the political moderate died almost 20 years ago after Barack Obama won his presidential campaign against John McCain from Arizona on November 4, 2008, was sworn in. On January 21st, 2009, that was the day Michelle Obama infamously said that for the first time in her entire life, she was proud to be an American citizen. Shortly after that, I knew that the political moderate was dead, and I told my parents that. And I've been on the forefront trying to tell the conservative party to stop trying to resurrect and resuscitate moderate conservative centrism. Moderate conservative centrism is why we lose. The Libs know, even though they're crazy, they know that the political moderate is dead. Ever since Obama- What? I'm sorry. It's a public comment. I can say anything. Ever since Obama, the left has been waging war on us by using violence as a protest tactic, and conservatives just sit there and try to psychoanalyze the left. We try to constantly moderate and censor our positions on things. They still call us Nazis and fascists and stuff. My point is we should stop trying to resurrect... moderate conservative centrism and embrace far-right extremism. It is the future of the conservative party. We should embrace it. They're going to hate us anyway. We should just embrace it.

Thank you, Joshua.

Do you want to wait until Candy? You're waiting for... Your next. No, but you still wanted to wait for your news. You okay with that?

Okay.

All right, the next speaker we have is Erica Grossman, followed by Rachel Ugly, then Greg Britton.

Hi. Welcome back, Erica.

A couple of things. I appreciate the idea of teaching students how to safely interact with AI, but I'm hesitant about its full integration into their education. Students already use various sophisticated programs like Canva, WeVideo, and so on. Considering this, I'm concerned about allocation of funds towards these advanced computer programs. Additionally, I believe our students spend excessive time on Chromebooks during the school hours. As a substitute teacher, I would rather see a reduction in computer use in a classroom Students already spend a lot of time playing games or using social media outside of school, and they're using Chromebooks for assignments and Hallmark for school at home. It's easier for me as a substitute teacher when students do their assignments on computers, but I'm honestly worried about the students' well-being. Another thing is, I would like to know your plans for this upcoming school year, given a significant number of staff layoffs. There was an article about a Redlands student who requires one-on-one support from a nurse, but unfortunately the nurse was laid off. Parents are undoubtedly more concerned about the impact of the layoffs than the parents' notification policy or no-deception policy. Thank you. Thank you, Erica.

Welcome back, Rachel. Thank you. First of all, I want you to accept my apologies for raising my voice at the last time I spoke. However, what was appalling is that our country is One nation under God and a republic as stated in our Constitution was not just demonstrating the allegiance that many in the audience should represent or accept. Possibly what's needed is education classes with a history about how America started. And those that are in this country, whether they were born here or not, if they were to be so outspoken in another country, there would be a law that would kill them or detain in some way and not be heard. So it is a privilege to be in this country. I noticed that a lot of people in the audience would not acknowledge the pledge of allegiance to our flag. We're here for a reason. Our allegiance is to this country for what our founding fathers established, that one nation under God and it's a republic. not a democratic country, not communism, not socialism, nothing else. And it's a privilege that we have that opportunity to speak on that behalf. And that The me-me generation has taken over the responsibility of the parents, and maybe it's that skip generation where the grandparents are the ones that are able to demonstrate what this country went through and respect it. and not demand and not acknowledge that the majority of people do not think the way they are thinking, but it's their opportunity to say, okay, that's what you believe in, that's okay, and not demand, nor take down people who are opposing them that are on the board. Thank you.

Thank you, Rachel. Michael, do you want to go next?

Thank you, Mike Paisner. Ms. Olsen cannot rebut the content of my arguments. So what does she do instead? She makes videos of me and posts them online under her Awaken Redlands account, as she did again this past week. RUSD Board of Education Governance Handbook, page 10, states, I will treat fellow board members, the superintendents, staff, students, and the public with courtesy and respect even when, and especially when, we disagree. Page 12, referring to board members, your social media posts reflect on the entire district, end quote. And yet, Ms. Olson, my elected representative, continues to make videos harassing and bullying me along with other members of the public. I disagree with many actions of this board and it is my right to come here and voice my displeasure. What should not happen? I should not be targeted online by my elected representative for exercising my freedom of speech. I do not deserve that. And you, Ms. Rendler, are responsible as the board president for ensuring the governance handbook is actually followed. I demand action. I demand you censure Ms. Olson for repeated violations of the governance handbook that I just quoted and that all of you agreed to abide by. She is my elected representative and she is harassing me online. What are you going to do about it? Sit there in silence until my time runs out and ignore her flagrant and repeated violations? Doing nothing is a dereliction of your duty as board president. You wanted the title of board president. Now it's time to actually do the job. Ms. Olson's out of control online. You've been informed about it. And you sit there and do nothing. That is not the action of a board president. That is irresponsible. That is dereliction of duty. I won't complain to her. She's crazy. She can't control herself. You are supposed to be responsible, Ms. Rendler. You should be doing something to bring your out-of-control board members in line. And the fact that you're sitting there doing nothing is unacceptable.

Michael? Next we have Greg Britton, followed by Catherine Appleby. And then after her, it will be David Bullock.

Welcome back, Greg.

Thank you. I'm shocked to acknowledge that I actually agreed with Melissa on something, and that is that AI will inevitably reduce human capabilities. I use Grammarly. I don't do my own grammatical corrections. It's just quicker and more efficient to let them, okay, correct that one, correct that one. So approach this with real caution when you're trying to develop skills in children if they get this The crutch, that they get the way of doing it easier too soon rather than developing the skills themselves. Our friends on the left here complain about waging culture war, yet, of course, the left has been waging culture war in the schools and out of the schools for decades. Reminds me of what Karl Marx said, that accuse your opponent of what you're doing while you're doing it. So don't watch culture war. Just give in to us and let us have our way. Yeah. Ain't going to happen anymore. I want to return to my subject of last time about standards. And after I had spoken, the superintendent had spoken, you know, we have room for improvement, but basically we're doing pretty good. Okay. Well, I got the latest state test scores. From 24 to 25, you increase reading English proficiency from 50.38 to 50.61, an increase of 0.23%. Let's say you wanted to bump that up to only 70%. Normally, 70% would be a C. It was the way it used to be when I was growing up. Well, at that rate, that would only take 84 years. We went from 37.14% to 37.54%, an increase of 0.4%. Let's say we wanted to get to 50%. That would only take another 12 and a half years. So I think there needs to be greater urgency at improving academic results and academic standards than I think what has been reflected. As long as I've been coming to these meetings, the numbers for Redlands have been about those numbers, maybe a percent here or half a percent there. And I just think that should be just unacceptable because that doesn't prepare the students to go out and get a good job and compete not only against other Americans but against Chinese and everyone else in the world. It doesn't prepare them to be citizens of the country and keep the republic. And it doesn't prepare them to keep the country. You have to pass on the history, the culture, and that's just not being done. 90% of parents think their kid is rating above grade level when all the test scores nationally, statewide, show it's the opposite. So I'd like to see more urgency in improving academic standards and performance.

Thank you, Greg. Welcome back, Catherine.

Thanks. So first, as an AI hater, proclaimed AI hater. This is my standing ovation for Mr. Hill and the Ed Services Division. Thank you for taking the time to create a thoughtful AI guidance plan. It's not perfect, but there's a neighboring district that six to nine months ago created their AI guidance plan, launched it. Redlands is as far and above superior. I hope you know that, that it is stand out. I appreciated the structured instruction about AI, the five levels of AI usage, the AI misuse and due process policy, the academic integrity violations list. I am going to be taking these back and using them for myself. So theft is what we do in education. I hope the board understands what was created for you. I know there are worries from the public. I know there are worries from the board members. But what was created by your department deserves recognition for it. I have a big ask. On June 26, Governor Newsom signed the 2026-2027 California state budget. A last-minute budget change eliminated access to Compass, a consortium of databases that all students, regardless of the wealth of their district, have access to. Students lose access to this summer of 2027. The cost to the state is $5.5 million annually. It's going to cost individual districts around $216 million to replace those databases on their own. That is not money we have. So before students lose access, I would actually like to ask the board to allow Superintendent Cabral to work with the other superintendents in San Bernardino and Riverside County, as well as the county superintendents of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, to form our own consortium to purchase those databases for our almost 1 million students. If we work together, it will be cheaper. Now, is it doable? I don't know, but I would at least like to have the numbers as to what it would cost these two counties to purchase it for all their districts.

Thank you.

Thank you, Catherine.

Welcome back, David.

Thank you. Earlier this evening, I put in for two things I was going to speak on, and for whatever reason, I was cut off. If possible, when appropriate, if you can let me know what happened so that doesn't happen to me again. And last time I attended one of your meetings, I was able to fill out a card, and my information was between me and the district. Now you have added another party to be part of our relationship, a party that I try my best to avoid as much as possible. But in order to duress you tonight, I had to share the fact that I was here addressing you tonight with my name, phone number, and email, and the topic of conversation with Google. It has been said regarding Google that when a product is free, that you are the product. Now, Google has the data that I was here addressing tonight. It has all this data from the speakers of tonight's meeting. I know it's easier for you, but it has me sharing my information with a company that I do not believe has mine, yours, or our best interest at heart. I urge you to go back to having us physically fill out cords in order to speak. I appreciate the speaker presentation on AI tonight. I've avoided AI as much as possible. When I've used it, I found it provides erroneous information. I would suggest you keep students at a level 01, no AI assistant for students. I made the statement the other night, AI is not necessarily your helpful assistant. It is a narrative management tool to shape your endpoint opinions by those programming the machines. programmed on behalf of very powerful people that want to control us and the world we live in. Listening to various subject matter experts talk about their experience with AI, they state that it is programmed to avoid controversial subject matter and lie about the fact that these subject matters exist. I believe the speaker touched on that. This is very dangerous to have information obfuscated from developing students believing something that is not true. It is not in society's best interest to have this. The experts that I listened to testified that after about seven or eight prompts regarding a subject they know inside and out, AI eventually admit that it was lying to the user. AI, along with all the cameras going up around the country to monitor our comings and goings, or who exactly and what we're doing, along with increased use of electronic banking, which can easily be programmable if we get away from cash altogether, can restrict where, when, and how, and what we spend our Xs and Y tokens on. All of it together is creating a control grid on all of us. I'm sorry that went a little bit off topic, but this is something we should be educating our children on. We should go back to books, papers, pencils, and pen. It appears that as technology becomes more and more prevalent, the worse off our children are doing. That is my opinion. Thank you.

Thank you, David. Next, we have Mark Laird, followed by Dale Broom, then Valerie Lee.

Welcome back, Mark. Thank you. I signed up to talk about equity, so I did want to talk a little bit on the AI piece. I did appreciate some of the follow-up questions that were asked. They do mirror some of my concerns, one of them being that, as Candy had mentioned earlier, when students are taking tests on a Chromebook, They often only have to do a secure testing browser for like the state testing. It's really difficult to enter a secure testing browser. I know presently they just use Google Chrome and teachers monitor, right? It is a big concern for me that as students are becoming more and more tech savvy that that will go unmonitored. Especially when you have students that already have all the technology at home and they are able to use that to get way ahead a disadvantage to students that don't. It's a big equity concern for me. The other piece as well with it too though, is as Candy explained, students can hop back and forth, especially if things aren't blocked on the browsers, but even then they can get around. without using secure testing browsers, which I know is very, very difficult as it is for a teacher to go and design a test in a secure testing browser. I think that that's something that really needs to be addressed with this plan going forward. I'm worried about it, and I do think that students have the ability to do things, even with some of those surveilling technologies. I know that there's GoGuardian and things for you to see every screen. I can tell you right now, three swipes on the track pad to the right, that's gonna change an entire browser window. And the students use that, things like, shortcuts like that, and they keep coming to get around a lot of those safeguards. So unless, if we're gonna continue to administer tests online, we need to work on as well making sure that those testing environments are more secure. I don't have any technological answers for you now. I don't think anybody does. But that is a big area of concern for me. Additionally, with regards to equity, as I said, it's really important that we're ensuring that students that, if we're gonna launch an AI plan, what is the plan to get students devices? Because I know my school district is going one to one with devices. Every single student will have a Chromebook from junior high through high school and they will keep it until they graduate. If we are going to be embedding AI into the curriculum, Part of what they need for that curriculum is providing the computers and the resources that they need to do that at home. It's expensive. I'm not saying it's an easy ask. And I actually would prefer that we don't. I would prefer we go away from computers. But if it is something that we are teaching as a skill, we need to be providing them with the tools they need to be successful. And that includes computer access for the software that you guys are talking about. Because otherwise, the students that don't have a computer at home are at a big equity gap. Thank you. Thank you, Mark.

Welcome back, Dale.

Thank you, Dale Broom, Area 1. Hey, I wanted to also just bring up this topic, too, and it was mentioned in some of the previous discussions, the importance that we as a school district not drive a wedge between parents and children. You know, the family was established by God before government was established, as Pastor Kevin had mentioned earlier. It's the most important basic foundation institution of our entire culture, and it goes across every race, every culture, every country, that parents are the primary guardians of the children. They're the ones that help make the decisions of every sort, health, education, and even education. what type of upbringing they have, religion. So these are very, very important. We need to not drive a wedge between parents and children. And unfortunately, AB 1955, which was the basis of this secrecy policy, does drive that wedge between parents and children. And we need to dissolve that. We need to make sure that we reverse that, pass this parental notification policy. And I will make this one caveat. The one exception in terms of the type of countries that do not... that want to drive a wedge between parents. If you take a look at Marxist and Communist countries, that is their primary goal. They want to separate, and also other totalitarian governments, they want to separate the children from the family so that they can have control of the minds of those children and that they will become minions of the state to do exactly what the government wants them to do. And so we, now, and one of the things that I see going on, and I've been following a lot of bills that come through Sacramento, there are a lot of attacks on parental rights that are going on. And they go back to that basic foundation of separating children from parents. It's very, very harmful to our society, and it's harmful to our children. And we're seeing government using the schools to provide services, social services, social services of all sorts for children, to the point where it's supplanting or even usurping the role of the parent. And that is a very, very dangerous state that we're trying to move toward, particularly here in this state of California. I wanted to bring up a couple arguments that were brought against this passage of this parental notification policy. And one of the things is that it's forced outing, and it's going to cause these children to be homeless. There are going to be various things like this. They're assuming that every parent is a bad parent. That is not the role of the teachers, the administrators to determine if a parent is negligent or abusive. That is the role of the court. We should assume the parent is able to handle that situation appropriately for the child, and we should not falsely accuse them. The other thing is some of these teachers that have spoken tonight seem to indicate that they have every willing desire to deceive parents and not tell them the truth about their child's gender transitioning. That is all the more reason why we need to pass this no deception policy. Thank you.

That's the last one? Okay. Oh, I thought he talked about it.

I'm asking President if she wants to offer the gentleman who feels like he lost amount of time, if the board wants, he can speak now.

Is that what you were asking, David?

Signed up for two items? He did speak on the two items, but he was asking for clarification as to why he wasn't able to speak on the second item in the first portion of the agenda. Oh, because it wasn't an agenda.

He signed up for two items, and then he also signed up for public comments. And he was given one three-minute period. But the reason is you spoke about both items within that three minutes. And so we thought you were done. And so because you did sign up, I'm asking. Would you like to come and talk about your second one? If you'd like three more minutes, I think it's appropriate if the board, unless the board wants us to figure it out and then let him have time later. Okay.

Okay. Okay.

All right. Any board members have any comments they would like to share tonight?

It seems weird that our board comments, aren't they usually at the end of the board meeting? It seems... Really? That's so strange. So I am going to skip my comments on the agenda items that are under the discussion. A couple of things I wanted to say. I did not post anything about the person who had falsely accused me of posting something regarding him. I did not do that, and I don't appreciate being falsely accused of things that I haven't done. Also, another speaker had mentioned the improvement in the scores, which was something I was going to mention. However, yes, they are very small improvements in our math and ELA, but we have a plan, and we've been working very hard and spending a tremendous amount of money on resources for PLCs. And this is one of the ways that very successful districts have rapidly and showed very significant improvement in their scores. The teachers, we sent a lot of them to trainings last year. Spent a lot of money training everybody up. So this year we've implemented a universal minimum day on Monday across all schools for the afternoons will be spent with the teachers collaborating with each other at grade level. So each Third grade teachers will come together, fourth grade at the school sites, etc., and they will identify the students that are falling behind in certain concepts and identify the struggling students, and those students will be siphoned off and given targeted instruction to get caught back up. So this coming school year, if we don't show a pretty significant increase, then we have an issue. But I expect to see, because it does work well, and there are districts that use the PLCs that don't show any improvement at all. And so I think usually the problem with that is the buy-in and the collaboration of the teachers. But in Redlands Unified, we have really excellent teachers. Most of our teachers care so much. They invest in a lot of their personal time, money. They buy supplies for the classroom on their own budget. And so I know that our teachers are very extraordinary. The older generation of teachers may have a hard time because as older generations in any profession, it's hard to adopt new changes. Just because you've been teaching and you know how to do it, you know what produces good results. So there always is resistance to change. But I think that once we see results... that everyone will jump on board, and I think we'll be in a different spot at this time next year with our scores, and a lot of struggling students will have a much better opportunity moving through the grades and in life in general. Once you fall behind, it's very hard to get caught up. You just keep falling behind, especially in math in particular. So I'm excited for that, and I think all of the work that Juan has done on the PLCs And that's it for my board comments.

Yeah, similar. I was going to actually mention PLC because I've read a lot about it and gone to workshops on it, and I am very excited about our district committing to the professional learning communities concept. I would love, Juan, if we could get a presentation not really a dry one of what it should be, but maybe a presentation from some of the staff that have gone to the trainings and what they really believe it can do for the students in our district and what they're excited about and how they see it helping at their school sites. Because I think that... It has a lot of promise if used effectively. And, of course, implementation, that's what I've learned, is the implementation is tough. But if the buy-in can happen, then it can be really beneficial to the students. The other thing I just wanted to give a little overview quickly for parents and guardians who are now getting ready for the kids to go back to school, which is hard to believe that summer's almost over. But there's three ways, three places parents can make informed parental choices regarding their child's educational experience. And one of those is the portal for the summer data confirmations, which opens Friday, July 31st, I understand. This is the ARIES database, and there are opt-out applications. options within that where the parent would go to under authorizations and then opt outs and I know I've heard parents say you know there's just so many things I have to sign so many things I have to read through but if they really want to make informed parental choices this is the time to do it at the beginning of each year they can opt out on several or not it's a yes no several areas, and so I just encourage parents not to rush through it, to take it seriously, and it's also important to update emails and phone numbers, and especially emergency contact information. And then the second way to control some aspects of what your child's being exposed to is because of the Mahmoud versus Taylor, Supreme Court decision, that is a form parents can, it's a form though that you have to fill out. It's not a yes, no. So it's a PDF on the website under the family tab. And that's where you can opt out of various genres in curriculum or books. and subject matters that you don't want your child exposed to, and then the form gets turned into the principal, and the principal then goes over it with you to get a really clear idea of what you're wanting to opt out of. And then thirdly, the Title IX notifications come in as emails throughout the year for you to be able to be... have a chance to look at the material and decide whether you want to opt out as specific Title IX presentations or videos get presented to your students. So I just wanted to emphasize that you've got to watch for the emails, really take your time, and that's a way that you can really exert your parental involvement as well. That's it.

Thank you. Melissa, do you have anything tonight? I just hope everybody has a great last few weeks of summer and will hit the ground running when school starts. And I don't have anything else. Superintendent Cabral?

Yes. I want to congratulate my cabinet, Jason and Patty and Lisa and Rudy. Rudy's on vacation tonight. And thank the board for your confidence in the cabinet team in extending their contracts tonight through 2029. It is a big deal. for cabinet members to have a contract and to have it renewed, and so thank you for your confidence in them. They are a great team. I'm very excited to continue working alongside them as we do what we can best for our students. I also want to thank the board because I took last week off, and it was good. And nobody texted me, called me, emailed me, and that was good. And thank you for my team who took care of business here. That's all my comments. Thank you.

All right. So we're going to move on to discussion items. Who would like to start this conversation on these two discussion items?

I can provide some context and just some clarifications because I've been emailed by several community members regarding the policies. First, as a discussion item, what we should be providing for the public, which we have, is whatever the board is using to discuss must be made available to the audience and so if you have not already grabbed a packet in the back there's a packet and it actually we tried to uh... make it as easy as possible to follow along by numbering and so if you look at the bottom right there's it's numbered one through i believe it's all the way through eighteen there are a few copies so there's the board policies There's the original BP 5010, the most updated BP 5010. There's the original AR 5010, and then the most updated 5010. And then there's Administrative Regulation 5145.3. That is relevant to the discussion because part of what needs to be explained to the public, and every board member is aware of this, is 5145.3 specifically states states that a student must give permission for their parent to be notified, specifically transgender students. 5010 currently would be in violation of 5145.3. 5145.3 is a current RUSD policy. The Board is aware that the question we were asking the DOJ and the OEG is whether or not the edits we made to 5145.3, which referenced Board Policy 5010, made it allowable. And that's the question that still has not been answered. While this has been happening, we also have Supreme Court decisions that have been handed down that have impacted AB 1955, the Safety Act, which speaks to the protections that are in 5145.3. The fact currently, and what I want to make the Board aware of in just dealing with facts, is that the Supreme Court did not strike down protections 1955. The Supreme Court limited some of the protections that are in AB 1955 but it did not completely strike it down. What that means is that in California it is still very much California law that a transgender student can tell a teacher that they are trans and then can follow up and say but don't tell my parents And the teacher has no obligation to tell the parents. And any policy that is passed obligating staff to tell the parent could be in violation of AB 1955 still. Okay, what the Supreme Court has done is they have said, we cannot lie to parents. That is a blanket constitutional protection for parents, which is very much understood, which you could think of it this way. There are two laws that we are trying to operate under. One is, of course, the constitutional protection. The other is the California law that protects students. That means that if that scenario were to play out and the teacher does not inform or staff does not inform the parent and the parent does not ask, then there's a likelihood that the parent is not going to be aware. That is how they coexist currently. Now, could the Supreme Court at some time completely do away with AB 1955? And I think a comment was made like that, unalienable, I think was the word that was used. Yes, there is a chance that at some point Supreme Court will rule that AB 1955 is completely invalid. But currently right now, July 21, 2026, that is not our reality. And so my duty as a superintendent is to make sure the board is aware that in its current form, BP 5010 and AR 5010 could be in violation of AB 1955 and also in violation of our current AR 5145.3. I use language like could because I would expect that if a policy is passed in its current form that it would be challenged and then that question will be answered at some point. If there is an urgency to pass this policy, then we have to keep that in mind. That is my duty to make sure the board is aware of those facts. This is not something that is an opinion or something that I want to see happen or not happen. I'm sharing with you the reality that's in front of us right now. As a discussion item, the goal of this discussion is for the board to give me direction on what to do next. Options would be to choose one of these copies of 5010 and bring it to board for a first read. Another option would be to modify it so that there is no violation of anything yet. An example of that would be if the board were to decide to modify the current 5010 language to say that it is only applied to official records, then that actually would be an easier policy to say does not violate AB 1955. The fact that it includes unofficial records is where there is the issue. That is what I wanted to make sure to share. The reason why there has been a delay with the OEG as far as giving us a response, I cannot respond to because I don't know why they've delayed in giving us a response to the way that we've modified it. But because there's so many different comments out there about how the Supreme Court decision compares to California law I want to make sure to make it very clear one more time AB 1955 is still very much in effect it has been limited by the Supreme Court but it has not gone away In its current form, BP 5010 and AR 5010 would be in violation of AR 5145.3 as well as AB 1955.

Thank you. Okay. Do you want to start?

Sure.

Are you talking to me? Yeah, so the current policy that's proposed is not in violation of AB 1955 at all whatsoever. It is not a policy that targets transgender individuals or gay individuals even. The Superior Court of San Bernardino found that that portion of Chino Valley's policy was in fact constitutional, which is why it is still in place. It's in place to this day with no further legal lawsuits, and Temecula has it, as well as about 10 other districts in California that are using that policy successfully with no legal challenges. I am not suggesting we do something that's illegal. However, in light of the cases that have been coming down and the recurrent parental rights lawsuits that have been won, I expect eventually that AB 1955 will be struck down. On June 18th, as it was mentioned by a speaker already, the Ninth Circuit blocked key parts of the AB 1955, so key parts of it have been blocked, citing the SCOTUS's Mirabelli ruling and said that AB 1955 forbids the mandatory policies that the Constitution requires. Based on Mirabelli, the Ninth Circuit here found that parents likely have standing to sue when they are the objects of policies restricting information exchanges about their children's gender identity or gender expression at school. This puts us at a legal risk for not putting into place a notification policy. In its decision, the Ninth Circuit emphasized longstanding precedent that parents have a constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. This right includes the right not to be excluded from decisions affecting children's mental health, such as gender dysphoria. As it is a parent's right, this right should never be infringed upon by the district, Only by offering an opt-in in addition, which I'm completely against having to opt-in. Infringing on a parent's right to be involved in what's going on with their child, that would be an infringement because parents don't understand opt-in, opt-out. I think it should just be standard. Regarding Mirabelli, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that parents are not merely indirect participants in school policy decisions, but are intended objects of laws like AB 1955. Thus, under Mirabelli, an objecting parent who is the target of AB 1955's effort to prohibit constitutionally required mandatory policies has standing to seek injunctive relief from the district, which again puts us in a very dangerous place legally. That being said, the parent notification policy we're talking about is general notification for changes. It is not particularly, it would be important for all kinds of changes. For example, if a kid wanted to change their address or the medications or their health records, notification would be sent home to the parent that their records were changed. And if the parent's not interested in knowing what those changes were, they don't have to follow up and request the records. Regarding outing, that's just not what this policy is about. It somehow gets the impression that if a staff sees a gay child or a child with gender dysphoria that they are to run and notify the parent. This is not the way the policy works. Generally speaking, when a child wants to change their name on their school record, that means they want the entire school, staff, admin, secretaries, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, everybody in that school knows the new name. This is a parent secrecy policy. The only people not knowing is the parents. When a student comes out, that means they've introduced themselves as the new person that they wish to be. So it's not that. They've already introduced themselves to the world at school. It is only the parents who are specifically targeted to be left out and left in the dark at the time when a child needs the most support in their life. And one good thing about having the school be involved is that we can offer support. So if a child is... very concerned about an angry parent, we can have a mediator. And I do know that Chino Valley, after they started this policy, they had, quickly, they had like 14 very successful outcomes. And that was because, you know, a parent is going to be on better behavior if they're with a mediator. Everyone will be more cooperative, more understanding, and it'll be a safer environment for a child. So if they wish to have a mediator by the school, then it's a safer place to do that as opposed to just being at home and if you're really worried about your parent. In addition, if there is substantial evidence to believe that a parent is going to be casting their child out on the street or harming them, then there's already California law in place. We're mandated reporters. So assuming that all of the parents would act that way, like one of the speakers had mentioned, is really not. Most parents really love their children and want what's best for them. There are parents that would not act right. We all know that. But we can't go based on an assumption that all parents are terrible to their children if they make decisions they don't agree with. Also, well, I guess... Regarding the gender support plans and devastating a child, some speakers had mentioned that this would be very devastating if we did this because of the students that would suffer. But I've asked Juan Cabral before about the students that are on gender support plans and how many of them have parents excluded, and he said none of them. So... As far as we know, there are no children with gender dysphoria that have excluded their parents from the conversation. So in effect, this really wouldn't have any type of impact regarding those children that are already on gender support plans. It would help for future, though, and it would help keep the parents in the loop when they're needed the most in a kid's life.

So, Juan, were you saying you gave a lot of information? So were you saying that, in your opinion, the only part of the policy that is problematic at this point is that we had included the unofficial records?

Yes, the part that I would disagree with Member Olson in that it's not a violation would be the policy specifically states that staff will inform parents. That is not something that's allowable under AB 1955 in specific situations. So I would want stricter language that would support parents something like unless it's against the law.

What are you talking about with the staff supporting notifying parents?

We cannot direct a teacher who's been told by a student that they are transgender, for example. We can't have a policy that would say you have three days to inform the parents.

No, it was, remember, the principal? It says in our, here, the principal's fund.

It says principal's certificate. Staff or counselor.

Staff in general. So what it should say instead, it should say if permissible by law, for example, you would inform the parent. There are situations where it would not be permissible by law. One situation would be AB 1955, which is still in effect is all I'm trying to say, is that... According to 1955, if a student, if it's only specifically because they're transgender, then you cannot direct any staff to inform the parent. I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm just trying to make sure the board is aware of what exists currently. That is a challenge for us. Now, I will add to it. That we are very different, and I've explained this to board members mostly individually, we are very different from Chino and what they pass and Temecula and what they pass because we have the stipulated judgment We have the Office of Attorney General that we meet with on a monthly basis. We are held accountable in a way that does not exist in other places. So when something gets challenged, when we have a complaint submitted or we have a lawsuit submitted, it isn't just employment boards that we're having to deal with. It's not just community comments that we're having to deal with. We're having to answer to the Attorney General That is a layer that I am trying to get us to understand exists, and I am charged with helping us get through that. We've been successful in the last two years. We're in a five-year mandate. We're about to start our third year. We've been substantially compliant. I am just making the board aware that this makes that more complicated. And I would say to everyone, what is the urgency if we think that the Supreme Court will ultimately decide to do away with AB 1955? Because if that happens, then it becomes completely easier. If there is a problem we're trying to solve, that creates the urgency, then help me understand what that urgent problem is because currently we don't have what I would identify as a problem with parents not knowing what is happening with their kids. And that's what I'm trying to convey to the board with respect to these policies. It's not, and if we don't want to like I'm not trying to say believe me, don't believe me. If we need for a lawyer to come, a lawyer of the board's choosing to explain, and I'm not talking about the OAG, I'm just talking about somebody from F3, somebody from, you know, we can ask ALR's attorney Dedrick or attorney DeMarco. to help the board understand the dynamic of the OEG and the mandates and how AB 1955 is still valid, it is limited, but it's still in play, and how we can navigate through that, then maybe we should do that. I have a duty to make sure. So if this passes, my job is to then implement, which I will do. And I've shown every policy that we've passed. That's what I do. I implement. And we will implement it successfully. And we will navigate through whatever complaints come in and all that. But before it does pass, I just want to make sure everybody knows, eyes wide open, this is what's in front of us.

The Attorney General that we're dealing with is the same Attorney General that already lost the lawsuit regarding the notification policy. And in addition... It's just when a child changes their records, the general notification is sent home. It's up to the parent to determine what that is. It's not a staff notifying the parent like you were mentioning.

Just really quick, the issue with the records is not, and that's why I mentioned official and unofficial, because currently, any time the official record gets changed, it can't get changed without parents. But unofficial records are different. Unofficial records could be something as simple as a student saying, I want to go by he, not she, and the teacher in the classroom simply jotting that down in a seating chart so that they remember that that's what the student prefers. That could be considered an unofficial record. That is why I was stressing that if you want to talk about official records, that's easier. We already do that.

Well, how do we do that?

Because official records are transcripts. They're your cumulative files. Those cannot be changed just because a student goes up to us and says they want them changed. We have to have parent involvement in that.

Well, what is called... Jason and I were talking about this a little bit today, but we were talking about the different tables. I think you called them within ARIES. Because I was asking him, is there a way to just have an automatic notification that goes out to parents that doesn't involve... any staff having to figure out what to say or how to say it, that the parent just gets a notification that there's been a requested change to, maybe it's not, I don't know, maybe that's not considered official records, like the medical table and the student information table, right?

There's likely a way to automate notifications. We would have to be very careful in the way we do that. Everything that is in our system, usually a human, it's better for a human to identify because sometimes there might be notes that would say do not notify this parent or notify this parent over that parent, but there might be a way to automate it. I think the It doesn't do away with the fact that there's been a directive that parents are going to be notified, and we just don't want to violate FERPA in any way. We don't want for there to be a violation currently of AB 1955, which is super complicated. It's not an easy question to answer. I have joked in cabinet that you could ask even today, ever since COVID, you can ask one lawyer one question and ask another lawyer the same question, and you might get two different answers, and they're both legal opinions. Then it's up to us to decide what we're going to do. That's why I'm making the board aware of our current situation. If the board chooses to pass the policy, Like I've stated, I will implement it and my team will implement it.

I have a suggestion. I'm looking at the revised one from March 31st, not the original one from February. I'm going to go through the changes I'm suggesting. It's the Board Policy 5010, revised March 31st one. which probably is the second one in your packet, or the first one? Second one.

Can I ask why we're having a revision conversation while Patty's not here? Because I was told we weren't going to have major discussions on things like this. If we're having a discussion about them, that's one thing, but we're also not supposed to be making decisions like this when we're all not involved, correct? I thought it was something that we all agreed to.

I don't remember agreeing to that. No. She chose to leave, so I don't know what was an important item on the agenda, and she left.

It's a discussion item, which means that there will be no decisions being made. We're not. Why does she have to be here?

We're just discussing.

You're working on a policy.

We're referencing a policy.

No, we're talking about making changes to a draft. which we would do when we have a draft, when we're looking at a first draft.

Generally speaking, the protocol Board members are allowed to be absent. If they are absent, they do not get to have a part of that discussion for that entire agenda. Vice President Hollihan was here. She had to leave. She forfeits her participation.

I understand that. However, I have had a conversation with this very same board where we were discussing absences and Whatever the reason Board Member Hollihan had to leave, it doesn't erase the fact that she has a right to input on this discussion. What I am saying is that I did have a conversation with this board, and I don't know if you guys just don't remember, but we were talking about absences, and I was told that I don't need to be at every meeting. Understood. But I said, then what happens when we have a conversation about an important topic and you... Michelle said, we wouldn't be having those discussions unless everybody is here.

I don't really remember that, but I'm thinking that possibly we were talking about if we knew you weren't going to be at a meeting, like two months later, you know that you're not going to be at a certain meeting, and you say, well, I can't be there. So if something emergent comes up, I'm not allowed to miss because I can't miss because... Well, no, I'm just saying we wouldn't put something important on the agenda if somebody knew ahead of time they weren't going to be there.

I understand that. So that means something important could be on the agenda, and at the last minute I could have to leave, and you would still have that discussion. This was in a planned absence, is what I'm saying. However, to continue on with your conversation is...

Change? This is not a final thing? We haven't even done a first read yet?

And that's what I'm asking. Isn't that when we're supposed to be having... Because as of today, there was no draft proposed. Why don't we just listen to what Michelle has to say?

I'm asking a question.

I mean, we haven't even heard what she's going to say, but we've, again, we've spent how long on this, on this topic, but listen, this revised one from what we've had this for a year since March of 2025. You've, we've had this to look at.

Okay.

We've had it.

So you have asking questions about, I only found out Friday that this was even on the agenda. Correct.

Did you have a copy of this from March of 2015?

No, I shred all of my stuff.

Oh, well.

And then I got it Sunday, right? So what I'm saying is that's the thing. Again, this wasn't attached to, there was no draft attached to the agenda, which is fine. But what I'm saying is it just doesn't seem that this is the appropriate time to have this discussion when a board member is missing. Also, when I wasn't given a draft, how do I know we weren't starting from the February draft?

Well, I brought both copies because I didn't know what we were going to do.

But you were prepared because you set the agenda.

But I didn't know which one she was talking about. She just said she wanted the parent notification on there. So I did it. And I got both my copies. I just prepared myself ahead of time.

Yes, you prepared yourself ahead of time. That's all I'm saying.

On Friday, I prepared myself.

I'm just asking for clarification. You're free to continue on with your conversation, just like I will ask for an opportunity to speak my piece, but I also want to highlight we have been discussing this for well over 10 minutes. Every time I have a topic I want to discuss, I get reminded of the time, so I'm just reminding you of the time. Okay.

Well, we let Juan go first, and he's not included in the 10 minutes. Okay. So here's my suggestions. So on the first page... That's board policy 5010. There's one strikeout already under one of the, it's like the third paragraph.

What page of the packet? One.

One?

One. Okay, you were talking about the March version, but you're going back to?

Yes, it's March, page one.

Oh, okay. Okay. All right. So in that section one, it's already been struck out and in some cases restored. So that one's fine, right? Down below, the very last paragraph, I guess, right at the top, it says the district notification policy requires the following. Can we say requires the following unless prohibited by law? And then have that in there and If we put that in there, do we have to take unofficial out, or should we still? Because that's an OEG thing. I don't know.

I have no idea which draft you're even looking at, because all of mine say February. Page 1.

The March you're referring to is page 1 says February 26, because that's when it was first drafted. But if you go to page 3 at the bottom, it says revise March 31, 2025. Yeah. So that's what I'm talking about.

That's why she's saying March. Okay. So that's one thing I was thinking. And then on the next page, actually on the third page, I'm sorry, it's page three. In number four, it says, I just think this needs to be changed. Bullying by or against their child within three days. It should say as soon as reasonably possible or no longer than three days. That was a change I made last in March, and it didn't get in. So and then down at number six, the other change I made in March was its third line says appropriate unless specifically prohibited. And we changed it to otherwise. I don't know if that makes a difference. But I think saying unless prohibited by law, do you think that that takes away the AB 1955? And does it help with what we don't know about the OAG still? Or should we take unofficial out still? I don't know.

It really, everything is okay until it's implemented and then challenged. And if it says unless permitted by law, then when we implement it, that would mean that we wouldn't violate AB 1955. But if the board feels like, no, we meant for it to violate, I'm not saying it, I'm saying it wrong. We meant for parents to be notified even in lieu of, you know, that then there might be a problem with the implementation. I said I'm going to implement whatever we pass. If it says that, then the way we're implementing it is we're making sure we're not violating FERPA or AB 1955.

Right, if it says unless prohibited by law, right now there's a law that says you can't do that, so then we wouldn't do that right now.

Yeah, it's just, I'm just trying to make sure the intent is understood because that's the way it would be implemented.

Would you leave official and unofficial? It could stay in because...

if everybody has an understanding of the intent of the way it's going to be implemented.

The key components of AB 1955 are currently blocked by law.

Okay, so then this would not, I mean, if we had it all in here, it's not prohibited, right?

Sections 5 and 6 are halted from any enforcement because of the Ninth Circuit ruling. They are blocked.

Yeah, but so what I'm saying is if we say these things in here, Even though it says students' official or unofficial records, unless prohibited by law, that protects us. And then if AB 1955 goes away at some point, like totally, then we're good.

Currently, those parts of it are blocked.

Well, it's blocked. It doesn't mean it went away.

No, it's blocked from being enforced right now.

From a systems perspective. It says, becomes aware, right? So within three days of becoming aware. Becoming aware is not making a change to a record. Becoming aware is when I'm made aware that I'm going to make a change.

Or does it say becoming aware?

If you look at bottom of page one, it says, shall notify parent or guardian within writing of three days if any district administrator becomes aware of a student's requesting a change. Oh, yeah. OK. Well, becoming aware and making a change are two different things. So when we talk about automated, well, it would never kick off because becoming aware, I didn't make the change yet. Becoming aware just means somebody told me to change it. Does that make sense? So there's a difference between becoming aware and actually making the change. So this kind of is contradictory.

Well, it says notify parents or guardians if they become aware.

So if a student asks me to change something, then I have to then notify the parent or guardian. But I didn't make any change. I just was made aware of making the change. You see, it's a subtle difference, but it means something. Because what the policy states is that if a student comes to me and tells me anything, and I'm going to change it, I need to make the parent aware before I make the change. But then there's no automated process. You're then requiring every employee to think ahead, right? If somebody tells me something, I need to, oh, shoot, I need to now call the parent or put it in writing. Or if you're going to want to automate the process, let's say someone mentioned AI automating the process. Well, AI is going to scan the system for changes and then notify. But that means I've already made the change. It's the only way it's going to notify. So

Yeah, so we could get rid of that part. That's easy to fix.

So becoming aware means I'm aware of the change, and making the change is something different. So if you're talking about a name, if I change my name, that's a change. If I'm telling you to change my name, but you don't do it, the policy relates to both of those. But how do we enforce somebody was told to make the change but didn't make the change? Right? This is both.

We can just get rid of that part and just make it purely automated.

If a change is made...

Right, after the change is made, it automatically goes as a general notification.

But yes, I'm just saying that this contradicts itself. You can't support one. Because we don't know intent.

And when I was reading through all this again and thinking about our discussion and what... Jason and I had talked about the, if I were a parent, I would really like to know when changes are made to my student's medical table.

Your student cannot change anything with their medical records. I couldn't even change my address without it. I had to have our superintendent change my address when I tried to do it.

I'm not talking about the student. I'm talking about, let's say, the... Who's going to change a student's medical record? A nurse.

Like a student comes into the nurse's office... Does a nurse have the right to change a student's medical record?

Well, they can add to it.

That is a change.

You can't add allergies or medications to it? They can, right?

If we're talking about like a doctor's note comes in and they would need to get that from a parent if there's anything that's going to have to go into their record. If they're putting down notes...

But could a nurse add a random allergy to a student's medical record?

I would think so. Yeah, if they broke out in a hive after they took their... A suspected allergy is something that you can change in a medical record?

Theoretically, it would be a discussion with the parent. Yes. And then the parents made aware that that change is being made.

Yes, I can tell you an example of that with my daughter. When she got stung by a bee, the very first time she was stung by a bee was in PE at school. And They called me because they asked her if she was allergic and she said no. And they called me and said, her face is puffy. Her eyes are all puffed up. And I said, well, then maybe she's allergic. She's never been stung. Oh, she didn't tell us that. And I said, okay. So, you know, they didn't have anything in the notes. There was nothing. But then after that, there was a note in there, possible allergic reaction to bee sting. And so then the next time it happened, they knew, oh, she's going to, that might happen again.

But a note, but that's what I'm saying, a note isn't a change to the actual file.

They didn't say, oh, she needs it.

And that's what I'm suggesting, that any official changes are already shared with the families, is what I'm saying. So even a note, doesn't matter what it is, is a supplement to...

that's what I mean even supplemental information notes let's say the student comes into the nurse's office three days a week with a stomach ache and the nurse notes it I would want to be informed and an automatic notification to me would be great then the nurse doesn't have to think about or even remember to contact a parent.

They should already be contacting a parent if your child comes in three days a week. I mean, even one day, you get a phone call. I've always gotten a phone call for every summit gig.

Well, I think we're kind of getting onto the weeds. The idea is if we want to bring it back to actually get into the weeds on the next meeting. Okay.

But I was hoping with the discussion is to finalize, like, what are we bringing back for a first read? We've done first reads before, obviously. What I would suggest is if we have a general idea, like this is the policy that we want to see move forward, that we make sure that our council sees it and gives us any – That I can share, like in an SU, this is what our legal said about the drafted policy with respect to 1955 and the OEG's mandates. And then that could be shared during the first reading. If there needs to be any edits, we would do it in open session.

OK. I like that idea.

I just see that if we do it as a first reading, Like, this paragraph needs to be changed. It's not just like a little edit. Are you talking about this one? The bottom paragraph. Yeah, I made notes on that.

Can we just, though, that's my point that I was trying to make is I really am in favor of the automated notification. Nobody has to call.

Anybody has to call.

And I don't see any reason why, to me, why not to include automated notification of student information, I don't know, whatever it's called in ARIES, and medical information. Why not include that?

Well, it would be any record that's in there.

Well, you can't. Jason and I had that discussion. That would just be hundreds, apparently, because counselors make notes.

No, not notes, but a change to the record, like if a teacher changes a grade.

But we just said that an allergy was a note, so now you're saying not notes.

But that's not changing the record yet.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying. So an allergy or a reaction is a note that would be added to a medical file. But you're also saying a note, like no notification for a note. You're kind of speaking on both ends of it.

No, we just said the note wasn't the actual record. That was a note that got put in.

She was speaking as to if there is something added as a note for an allergy, that that would need a notification.

Just why you see angst in me, because I know the system. School's not in session now. We have summer school. Just today, there's 15,727 changes made in ARIES permanent records. Just today. Okay.

That's not a lot for an automaton.

No, but think about the parents. So let's take... There's 15,000 changes today. There's only... I don't know what summer school enrollment is. Let's say it's 1,000. That means every parent today got 150 notifications.

Are those grades? What are they mostly?

They're all kinds of stuff. But when you say permanent records... When you say unofficial and official, that's everything. Right? Yeah. And that's the worry. We mentioned earlier parents don't read everything, and there's a lot, and we're imploring them to look at the authorizations. Well, give them 150 more messages today. I can guarantee you they're going to ignore all of it because it's just too many. And I can fine-tune. I can even say just give me... A minute, I can look at just stew records, right? I mean, I'll just do that real quick.

So I wonder how Temecula does it because they have no problem with the automated notification.

We can ask them, but what I'm saying is... That would be good.

Yeah, parents don't want 100 notifications.

The policy as it is is a massive policy to implement. And we'll implement it, but I'm just saying what you're asking is not only us implementing this massive policy, but it's going to bombard... families, unless we fine-tune it to something that works.

Can you just give me an example of something that is in there of the 15,000? That's like a lot.

I thought you were going to say like 100.

That would mean teachers, staff would be implementing something like a thousand a day themselves. That doesn't make sense.

There's mass update. I mean, a perfect example, like what we said, if counselors go today and meet with ninth graders, They document in counseling that they met with all ninth graders. They do a mass update. So they do a mass update, which means that's 1,000 ninth graders that just got a mass update to their permanent record. That's 1,000 messages just went out. And if they did two of those updates, that's two messages per every ninth grader just that one day.

But is that just them talking to the ninth graders? Yes. But that's not really a record.

That's a... How do you define what a record is, though? You'd have to distinguish what exactly we would want.

That's what I'm saying. This, the way it's written, is so broad. Okay. But if you get fine-tuned, then you get into the weeds, right? So I... It's problematic.

Jason, what can a student go to the office and ask to have changed in their record? I mean, is that a...

I spent five years in this role of student data, and the only change that's ever been asked is a name or gender. Right? I mean, you asked me the question, name and gender.

Or a grade.

A grade, right. And so, but that's not what this is for, is it?

I mean, can a student ask for that change and it's granted?

I've never seen that. It's never been an issue. I'm not saying across the U.S., but in this district. I only remember one time in the five years I was in that role where we had a discussion with a parent because a child changed their name and the parent logged into Parent Portal and it was different. And so that parent initiated a conversation with the school site. I got involved because I can see the logs, so I can see which employee changed that. But only once in the five years I was in that role did we ever have a student request a change, and they didn't want their parent to know. I haven't been in that role for seven years.

In that situation, what I heard you say is because the parents have access to the portal, they have access to the records. They can see it. Even if the school is trying to deceive a parent, it's not that easy given that they have access to everything. The unofficial record that I keep talking about, that is different because, like I said, if it's like a seating chart or if it's notes that the teacher has in their classroom, it's not something that's going to be in a system. Right. So then that becomes easier for that not to be shared. The other, because we're so systems-based, I mean, it's really difficult for a parent not to see everything. I mean, you all, some of you are parents, and you have access to what I'm talking about.

A parent portal, a student portal sees all the data that's in the system now. In my experience, the one time it became an issue, that's because the parents didn't see what they expected to see, right, because that student changed their name and gender. And the parent said, that's not my kid. And that initiated a conversation about notification, right? That ended up into, you know, it was a family event.

Sorry, but the notification for that change did go out.

No notification went out. The parent logged in and could see it.

No, no, but any time you make a change in ARIES... There's an email.

No. I get them.

I get emails.

Depends on what it is, right? It depends on certain systems. It's not every change.

Yeah, maybe not every change, but I'm just saying when I go in and change something, I get an email about it.

You change, yeah, in the parent portal, but not when we change things. Uh-oh. Yeah. And that's because you can have multiple parents. And so in the role, often you have divorced parents, right? And divorced parents have multiple custody issues, right? A lot of times they're united and sometimes they're not. And so what happens is ARIES implemented, and when a parent changes a record in ARIES, all the parents get the notification that it was changed. And that was just the easiest way to get out of these custody disputes because you have a divorced family. They don't agree with each other. They don't see eye to eye. And so the school district's getting stuck in the middle of this custody battle. And so ARIES implemented a case that when parents make changes, Notifications go out to all of them. Students can't make any changes. And parents can only make changes to certain items through the parent portal, which is things like contacts, address, things like that. Allergies, right? But right now, any parent in our district can log in and see all the information on their student. The only thing this does is makes us send a message out to say, go look at it. Right? I mean, that's what this does. Because if a parent's not up and logging in, they're not going to see it. But if a parent's concerned, they can see it at any point, 24-7.

So but a child, my question, maybe I didn't say it right, but a child can go to the office and ask that their name be changed and it is done for them?

I've never seen that. I've seen nicknames added, right? Because in areas you have first name, last name, and you have a nickname. It's like Jonathan and they want to be called John, right? We can't change the permanent record. So a nickname's not a part of the permanent record. It's, right, unofficial.

I think her question is, could Jonathan go in and ask Jonathan be changed to John?

They could. The only time I've ever seen that happen was once.

No, I know, but I'm just trying to find out how it works. If the child can really go in and... Every time that that's happened, the parents are always involved.

I only saw once where the parents weren't involved, and that's because that student was in a complete disagreement with his family.

Yeah.

Right? And they brought in multiple people and counselors and... We got into what age can they do this, what age can they make the change, what age, that whole question. It was the only time I ever saw that happen. And the minute that change was made, parents were involved.

So the scenario that that does happen, I guess what we're trying to point out is the parents would have access, though, to whatever change was made. They just wouldn't get that notification. But if they are looking in the portal, they're going to see it.

Yeah. But I... Yeah. I just think that's strange that a child could go in and ask to have something important changed in their record.

Yeah, but in California, you have that medical law.

It is the crux of the issue. Because the Safety Act was created specifically, some protections were given to students the age of 12 for medical. I mean, there are some things that exist. And I do believe that's what we're trying to figure out how we can work through.

And can this one little paragraph thing be reworked somehow? I don't know. And then we can bring it back for a first read in August? Yes.

Well, it sounds like the automated idea initially sounded more streamlined, but now you're saying it's going to bombard parents with hundreds of notifications. So maybe that's not it. I mean, we need to decide which way we go.

I would like to call a district that has a plan like this and find out specifically how do they do that.

Okay.

Right? Because the way that I interpret this, and again, it's just the way I interpret it, is this is a massive undertaking that is overkill to what the intent is.

Right, of course. So maybe on the first read we can figure out if it's going to be automated or through staff after we talk to some districts that do it.

But I can call and figure out how they do it.

So hold. Bring it back for the first read after. And in the meantime, Jason will talk to some districts that do do the automated email. And then also, Juan was going to ask for a legal opinion to come. Is that correct?

Yes.

And then we can have them here during that portion of the board meeting?

If the board's requesting that, I can make that. I was saying I would send the policies to them and then they could give us. No, that's better. That's cheaper.

With the change, like when you figure out if the notification thing will work or how that's going to work. So does that take care of board policy and the AR? Because they both have the same.

If the direction is to use the most updated of both versions, then yes.

I really don't like the opt-in. Are we stuck with opting in, or are you willing to reconsider that?

Are you asking to go back to the February one?

I mean, I don't care about the other language. There were other minor changes that I don't mind. The main thing that mattered to me was having to opt into it. The minor changes. On page nine. You had mentioned there.

So your idea was that nobody should have to opt in or opt out. If you're not interested, you just don't worry about the notification that's coming or whatever. Okay. I'm good either way. I'm fine either way.

Why is there an updated draft then if we spent hours talking about this? We spent forever talking about how it should be an opt-in because the parents that wanted to be informed would be. So why are we going back on that now?

Well, I was never okay with the opt-in. So, I mean, does that count?

I said that same thing last time because the thing is, like, you shouldn't have to opt-in.

Because you can just say when you get the notification, you can just opt-out by throwing it away in the trash or deleting it in your email. That's how you can just opt-out. So I don't think there should be an opt-in process. How much paper is that going to involve? How many times does this happen? Like... How often is this going to be happening?

Because it's to any record, correct?

Well, we're going to figure that out. So there's not 150 spams in their email, if that's the way we go. So how many times does what happen? A notification be sent home. How many times does a major change... For which record? Well, we have to decide that. Medical, I don't know, it sounds like medical decisions or medical records can't be involved. So that's what I find interesting because...

You're saying that this has nothing to do with transgender students or gay students, but the only real changes are names and pronouns. So how is this not directly an attack on our trans or gay students? And at the same time, again, excuse me, I'm talking. I let you guys go on for the last hour. I've earned my right to be able to speak my piece. You guys are moving ahead with what you need to. I have the right to speak. So at the time when we had this discussion, the majority of the board agreed that it was better as an opt-in. Yes, you didn't like it, but just like I don't like this, that was a decision at the time. So why is it that you're getting to undo that progress?

I'm just saying my opinion, I would prefer the opt-in to be out of it, just as I said before.

Yes, and at the time where we got to the March draft, it was decided it would be an opt-in, so that the parents that wanted to be informed, which if it's as many as you say, I mean, I'm sure you'll remind them plenty, they can do that. It'll be part of the ARIES confirmations, right? So I don't understand why we're going back on the March draft.

It's a new day, and we're working on putting it on the agenda for the first read. So now we've gone back and forth, talked about it a lot, so now we are re-asking people's opinion. What is your opinion?

Well, yeah, I would say as a first read, then that's when, I mean, I guess we could bring that up at that time because it would be a first read that we could, that could, would be my comment. I would rather have it be an opt in. Just not opt. Just no opt. Yeah. I just don't. I don't see the need for those. That's what I'm saying. So that's why.

So if it's any change, then that would be, it would have to be in writing. It would have to be by email. Already, we're already bombarded. I get a call, a text, and an email anytime anything happens in ARIES. So we're adding paper to this. So that is another cost that our district is incurring because... We're sending out a lot of letters.

It's automated. We have the March 21st revised, okay? We already did it. And so I think that's when we actually roll on.

Am I just being ignored? Because I didn't even get an answer to my question. Is that not a cost that we're going to be incurring?

Possibly. We have to figure out how we're going to do that. Thank you.

Thank you for answering my question because no one else seems to care that I am also a board member who has an opinion on this matter.

I didn't even hear the rest of Juan's answer, Melissa.

I said possibly. It depends on how we decide to do the notifications should the policy pass.

So what I'm saying is, instead of going back to the February 26th, because we have this revised one from March 21st of 2025, this is the one we need to bring for the first read. And if somebody wants to make a change at that point, then we do that.

Sure. I know.

It's fine. And the board... Policy is March 31st, the revised. One is March 21st, one's March 31st. Those are the two we would bring back.

So just to clarify direction, the versions that are the most updated will be sent to legal for an opinion with the intent of bringing them to the August 11th meeting as a first read in its current form. Jason will investigate notification the way other districts that have this policy provide notification to parents and can have that information also on August 11th. I would just remind the board that when we have a first read Typically, if there are major changes made, then it would come back to the board as a first read again. And so I just want to make sure everybody understands the process that we've followed with respect to changes that are made.

Wouldn't it make more sense then for the attorney to see it after the first read?

No, before, so we know it's legal, right? That's what I would suggest. Some changes are going to be made. They could change it, maybe. They could suggest the changes, right?

Yeah, the hope is that they are going to provide a legal opinion on how it impacts or doesn't impact AB 1955 specifically and AR 5145.3 and our stipulated judgment. So getting that answered first is, I think, a good idea.

So when it comes to first read, it's going to look just like this? It should look like this with their opinion.

Yes, with me explaining what legal said about the policy.

Now, would we put the unless prohibited by law in there?

That's my understanding that we just did tonight, yes.

Before they see it.

Yeah.

Okay. Okay. So we're good with that one? That sounds good.

That is the direction that I understand, yes.

Well, since I didn't get to get in any of my comments, I do have a request for you, Mr. Cabral. Being that, like, we're been, or I've heard all night long about how this is, you know, about parent rights and, you know, like, any time that, you know, there has to be the whole need for all of this is because, you know, if... a change comes up and we have, you know, it's an important conversation that parents need to be having with their students. So rather than all this ridiculous policy stuff, I would actually like to have us do another workshop, one of our safety workshops. And I would actually like to know if it's possible that if we have... a night where we, for families, and say they're faced with an issue like this, maybe a workshop on how we can help them facilitate those conversations. And not, you know, either accepting or rejecting their decision, but just facilitating the conversation in a neutral position as an alternative. It was as an alternative to the policy, but being that this is the direction the board wants to go in, I think it would be helpful for parents.

Yeah, we can do that. Thank you. Yes, we can do that.

Okay, now we're on to no deception policy. Who would like to start this discussion?

I'll just say something really quick. Since it's already the law and we already need to abide by it, Juan has already told all of our principals that we are, under no circumstances, able to lie to parents or be dishonest by omission or overtly. We should just put it in policy so that it doesn't happen. I understand we're not lying to parents currently, but that doesn't mean that in the future some teacher may feel the need to do that. And so it's always good to have a policy in place so that we can hold teachers or staff accountable who would choose to maybe make that poor decision and lie to a parent.

We already don't break the law. Excuse me, you said your piece. Can I? Again, I didn't interrupt you while you were speaking. Did you have something else to add?

I can answer you when you're finished.

Well, no. Again, this is...

Okay. So what I wanted to say was that when you are a professional at work, it's against policy to do certain things, right? They have policies for a reason. So let's say you can't steal supplies at work. It's against the policy at the hospital or wherever you're working, right? Right. All your employees, you assume, are honest and are not stealing supplies, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have a policy to fall back on so that when an employee does break the law or go off the rails, then you can hold them accountable. So just because we're not lying to parents, it is the law that we cannot lie to parents, so we need to have a policy in order to hold an employee accountable if that should happen. That's all.

But I would assume that employee theft of supplies is much more common than, right? I mean, is that not an issue? People stealing supplies from their job? That's why they have a policy.

I've never heard of that as an issue. I've never heard of that. I've never seen anyone steal supplies at my work.

I didn't say at your work. I just said from their job. It happens. I mean, I...

Yeah, people take tape home.

Yeah, a stapler, whatever. It happens. Scissors. It doesn't...

Okay, so I must have picked the wrong... Let's say steal someone else's money.

Can I please finish talking? Can you see what I'm saying? Can I please finish talking? Because I'm stating my piece. I'm not asking you a question. So what I'm saying is I understand why... Stealing supplies, yes, would necessitate a policy of if you steal a supply, you get fired. That's understandable. Being that we've never had an issue where somebody's lying to parents, which we don't do, I mean, I would expect that if that were something that were happening, we would hold our superintendent accountable because that is his job and that is why we hired him. But you yourself said that we weren't lying to families. So if you and I were great friends and you asked me to house sit for you, I would absolutely do that. If for some reason as you're leaving, I said, I won't steal from you, don't you think that that would cast some doubt in your mind that what a random thing to say, I wouldn't even think that you would steal from me, but now that you've mentioned it, now I'm going to think about it. So what I'm saying is I feel like this policy, or yes, that this introduction of this policy isn't necessarily building trust, which I agree we do have to do. There has been a history of issues in this district, and the only way you can do that is not with some empty policy that we have no way of knowing if it's going to work, but through actions and over time. And I think that the staff in our district and our superintendent have earned the right to show us that we can trust them. If there is an issue where they show us otherwise, then I'm sure there are protocols in place and there are disciplinary actions that can happen. But to have this we're not going to lie to you policy just seems very odd. when we're not doing it, and suggesting otherwise that we need this policy, even though you agree we're not doing it, just seems very deceptive.

Is there any way that we can incorporate some of this into the notification policy? Because there's a spot in there that said it is the intent of the Redlands Unified School District in enacting this notification policy to do the following. And then it says, provide procedures designated to maintain trust between school district parents and guardians of pupils. I mean, is there a way to incorporate that in there somehow?

Well, actually, I had looked into incorporating it into board policy 6020, parental involvement, because we already have that policy as well. And I even drafted an idea of how to do that. But just putting it in somewhere, it seems unnecessary to have a whole separate policy. If someone in the audience said, what if this was your child? If it was my child, I would want to be notified. To me, there's been so many cases in the last few years of situations where students have had problems and issues and psychological, emotional, mental health issues, whatever you want to call it, that parents have not been notified about or staffed. I'm talking about throughout the United States or other countries as well, but... where they have not been provided with honest information. So to verify that we don't and won't do that in a policy, I think it's great, personally.

Yeah, I think it just needs one or two sentences somewhere in the policy, saying that the trust that we build with our staff and that they're not going to lie and make...

And it also, I think it also gives some, I don't know what you call it, stability or confidence in teachers who may have felt like other teachers or the students want them to lie, even if they, maybe the student says, please don't. If my mom asks you, am I wanting to, whatever the issue is, Please, if she asks you, don't tell her that it adds stability for the staff, too, to know that, no, I just, I can't. I can't keep that secret.

Yeah. Does this seem like something that can be done?

I think incorporating into sounds very doable. Figuring out where. I know we also have... 4019 which is professional standards which HR uses to hold employees accountable and that could also be an avenue to explore as far as putting that in there I do think that We want to make sure that there is not anything conveyed to employees that they would have to violate FERPA in any way because that would still be something that we'd have. So I think somehow referencing FERPA would be good. That would be my only suggestion. Otherwise... I think Member Olson said it. We're already doing it. I think Melissa said it, or Member Alicantara said it, or Clerk, sorry. We're already doing it, and so it's not like it's going to change what we're doing. But I do think that there are still, and we can get a legal opinion on this, and that's why I mentioned FERPA, there are still going to be times where where it isn't legal to disclose all information. And it could be as simple as 12-year-olds and up who are protected with some medical situations. And so I just want to make sure.

But the staff would have to say that's information I'm not allowed to share.

Well, that's what we want to make sure that we make clear, like that we can give direction to our staff and that they don't feel they're violating any professional standards because it just has a blanket statement that you can't lie.

In the professional standards, it would say... unless otherwise prohibited by law, right? Like we would keep using it.

Right, right. That's what I'm suggesting, and FERPA could be a part of that. But, yeah, any of the ones that you've mentioned, I think, I'm not familiar with 6020 as much, but professional standards, I know the 4,000s, if you remember, are personnel, and that is specific to how we expect our staff to behave.

Okay. So the direction for that is to find out what policy it could go into that we already currently have in place, maybe. Does that sound right?

Yeah, 60-20 or the one that Juan, whichever it fits better in.

can I hand you this one or do you want me to email it to you just the idea I had for 6020 it's not the whole I'll do both if you email me that would be good because then I have I can copy because that's a long policy

One thing that we had an issue with before not having a policy is when the librarian brought in the cartoon porn into the library without permission. And the first question is, what policy did she break? There was nothing. So it doesn't mean we think our teachers are lying or anything.

So what does that have to do with the no deception policy?

It's exactly the same parallel. If a teacher, let's say, goes and lies to a parent intentionally omitting information or lying to them, then what policy did they, how is Juan going to hold them accountable? They can't be disciplined for lying to a parent because we don't have a policy that they broke. That's exactly why.

We just had a norm, right? It's like, it would be just a norm that

I wouldn't say that one issue requires an entire policy. But why not?

That's why I'm saying don't have it as his own policy.

No, no, no. I know. I understand. But that's what I'm saying. We wanted to create a whole thing for one issue, which seems like there's not even an issue, but we're still doing this. That's all I wanted clarification on.

My understanding and the direction is to find a board policy that exists that we can incorporate it into, and then I can provide that as a first read on August 11th.

And I don't think necessarily the whole thing, right? Just the important thing of it. Okay. All right. So this meeting will be adjourned. I can't see that clock.

10.30. 10.30 on the dot.