The meeting began with public comments on the proposed flag policy, which has been a topic of contention. Renee Keeny, representing Beverly Avenue, reiterated concerns about a restrictive flag policy. She advocated for decisions on flag displays to be made by school administrators in consultation with students. Keeny highlighted the educational value of dialogue surrounding flags and their meanings, asserting that a restrictive policy could diminish learning opportunities. She emphasized that any decisions should align with the district’s mission of inclusivity and compassion, arguing that diverse communities, including those represented by pride flags, should be reflected in school policy.

Following her comments, other community members expressed differing perspectives. One individual, Nyla, pointed out that symbols like the pride flag and the Black Lives Matter flag might not represent every person within those communities. She raised concerns about the district enforcing values through flag displays and suggested that schools should instead focus on teaching students to engage in civil discourse and debate. Nyla also questioned whether schools should dictate which ideas are good or bad, emphasizing the importance of students navigating these discussions themselves.

The issue of student involvement was underscored by another speaker, Chris Brule, who criticized the scheduling of the meeting at a time that precluded student attendance. He argued that the committee should prioritize student voices in discussions that directly impact them, such as the flag policy debate.

In addition to the flag policy, the committee addressed the need to review and potentially streamline existing school protocols. A member noted that the current protocols, spanning seven pages, might benefit from simplification. The committee considered collaborating with Alicia from the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC), known for her expertise in effective school committee practices. The goal was to develop a concise and focused set of guidelines, incorporating best practices from other districts.

This discussion highlighted the committee’s intent to refine current protocols independently before consulting with Alicia. Members agreed to review the protocols individually and reconvene with their findings.

Another focal point of the meeting was the potential overhaul of outdated school policies, particularly those concerning civil rights, sexual harassment, and discrimination. The last comprehensive policy review occurred in 2018 and took 16 months, aided by the MASC. Although a major overhaul was deemed unnecessary, the committee acknowledged the need to address updates from MASC since 2020. Confusion surrounding federal Title IX changes, currently on hold, was noted, with state laws still mandating adherence to similar standards. Legal counsel was suggested for guidance on which policies required immediate updates.

Furthermore, the committee discussed the recess policy, with a member strongly advocating for two recess periods for students, citing the benefits of physical activity on focus and learning. The removal of a second recess in the past had led to parental backlash, resulting in its temporary reinstatement. The conversation included operational aspects of recess, such as transition times, which some argued should count as “time on learning.”

Concerns were raised about implementing the recess policy immediately versus starting it in the next school year. The committee expressed a desire to draft a policy ensuring K-6 students would have two recess periods permanently. The proposed policy aimed to balance the educational needs of students with the logistical requirements of teaching staff. It was acknowledged that additional work was necessary to formalize the policy, with plans to involve relevant administrators in future discussions.