Jess Franz, Bethel Local School Board

07/11/2022

Attention! The K-5 Construction Tour planned for July 11th has been cancelled. The facilities committee meeting will now begin at 6:30 pm in the High School Media Center, immediately followed by the Regular Board of Education meeting.

06/13/2022

Attention! The facilities meeting on Monday, June 13th has been moved from 6:30pm to 6:00pm. The Board of Education meeting will then follow, starting at 7:00pm.

04/17/2022

03/12/2022

Julie Reese recently spoke in the hearing of the public on agenda items at the work session. A summary of her points and responses from Jason, Bethel Technology Supervisor, follows.

Julie has proposed on several occasions to introduce technologies other than Chromebook to Bethel students. In particular, Apple tablets for the youngest because Apples lean toward creativity, and they are harder to learn the older you are.

She maintains that in later years, it would be nice to have laptops available for our Juniors and Seniors because it could introduce them to the Windows operating system.

She is proposing usage of other technologies because today’s kids experience a world of nothing but technology from nearly the time they are born. Chromebooks are basically a browser that allows students access to the internet, and they are not used in the real world. She believes it would benefit Bethel students to have knowledge of Apple and Windows to be successful in the world of technology (rather than a 13-year diet of only Chromebooks).

Some of the reasons given for only Chromebooks is that Apple does not lend itself to mass updating. It would be more work for the technology department to have multiple operating systems and devices (not that it is not doable, just a point). Cost of Apple devices is about twice that of Chromebooks, but the life expectancy of the devices is longer (I do not know how much the expanded lifespan would offset the cost of the devices). We have a computer lab where students can take a class to learn about Windows. Julie feels attending a one-time class is different than using it daily for two years.

In addition, there is the question of a four-year rotation for Chromebooks when they have a 6-year lifespan. Why not keep them the entire life of the device? Julie believes it would save some of our precious funds if the devices were used to the maximum of their capacity.

She also believes the first step should be to get the youngest kids introduced to Apple devices. K-2 would be best, but maybe start with K-1. As the technology department gets past the learning curve and develops procedures to manage these devices, then maybe laptops for the oldest students could be considered. The technology department already have some experience with these devices because the staff has them.

It would be interesting to see the numbers regarding the residual value of Chromebooks if given up the 4th or 5th year rather than end of life and which benefits the school the most. She is concerned that the district isn't looking at saving where it can in order to put it toward building out the 5th grade wing in the new building.

If you have thoughts or opinions you'd like to share on the use of Chromebooks or Apple tablets, please send an email to [email protected]

*Julie Reese is a long-term Bethel resident and former Bethel Local School District board member. She worked at IBM for 30 years. She was recently elected to the Bethel Township Board of Trustees.

03/08/2022

The Bethel Board of Education is currently considering implementing a student drug testing program.

Testing is being proposed for High School and Junior High students involved in extracurricular, co-curricular activities (band, choir, clubs), and for student drivers.

While it is non-punitive as far as impacting grades, it would be punitive for participating in games, contests, etc. If the district decides to implement a student drug testing policy, it would be added to the student code of conduct policy for athletics.

Some common questions that have been asked are: “Will parental consent be needed for testing?” and “Would the testing date be announced beforehand?” These questions would be considered and decided by the district.

There are many pros and cons to be weighed before making a decision. While proponents of testing claim that testing promotes a feeling of safety and can decrease drug use, others argue that testing is an ineffective and costly method for dealing with this issue.

I am requesting parental and community feedback so that my vote on this issue is reflective of the thoughts and opinions of my constituents. Please take a few minutes and complete the survey or send an email with your thoughts to [email protected].

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/J7DDRYW

02/26/2022

The events that have transpired over the past few months surrounding the handling of the Bethel restroom issue are nothing short of dishonest, wrong, and an embarrassment to the district.

As a newly elected school board member to Bethel Local School District, I have been disheartened by the incredible lack of respect for the Bethel Community. The parents, community members, and stakeholders of this district deserve better.

How did we land in this place of confusion, chaos, and division that we currently find ourselves in?

The answer lies in the disastrous handling of the situation by both the Superintendent and the Bethel Board of Education.

To help the community understand where we are today, I have constructed a timeline of how events unfolded from my perspective.

➡️ Fall of 2021 - A complaint of discrimination was threatened by the family of a Bethel student. This threat of a complaint, accompanied later by a threat of litigation, led to Superintendent Firks crafting a directive in response. The directive gave access to a trans-identifying student to use the restroom of the student’s chosen identity, despite the fact there is no policy in place to support such a decision.

➡️ Early December – Before I was sworn into the Board, I learned that Superintendent Firks and the former school board president made the decision to give the trans-identifying student access to the restrooms of the student’s chosen identity after they spoke with a retained school board attorney. According to Superintendent Firks, the attorney advised the school to allow access to avoid possible litigation. I believe it is important for the community to understand the Board made the decision without seeing an official legal opinion from the attorney.

I have also since verified that although there was a threat of litigation, no attorney ever contacted the district on behalf of the student.

➡️ January 10, 2022 - I received a message from a Bethel parent in the afternoon that the decision to allow the student access had been communicated to the teachers and went into immediate effect. That evening, I was sworn into service on the Board.

At no time did the Superintendent or the School Board President communicate with me that this was going to be the new ‘stance’ of the district. I was never asked for my input on this issue, nor was I given the opportunity to vote on departing from what had been the practical unwritten restroom policy of the district for decades. More concerning is that the Board did not seek the opinion of the community, but instead, only sought ideas and opinions that reinforced what they had already determined to do.

Soon after the meeting, I issued a statement to the community clearly communicating where I stood with the decision.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wW4LoSAoZiVtxQuxFeHNGwtjxl99lZEV/view?usp=sharing

➡️ February 1, 2022 – At around 2pm, I received an email from Superintendent Firks. He attached a Transgender FAQ document and requested that the Board “plan on reviewing it (informational only) this evening and we can release it within the next 24 hours.” During the Board meeting later that evening, he informed the public that it was ‘procedure’ for the district, but the Board was told it was for informational purposes only. I requested more time to look over the document, which was later found to have misleading statements confirmed by the school board attorney. I was denied additional time and a yes/no vote was taken to share the document with the public. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1csOWFqxs5Yq-jut8OgnCEmGjTY-niqb_/view?usp=sharing

At the work session meeting, I encouraged the Board to walk back the decision as the issue had not been fully legally vetted, and the Board had failed to make an informed decision because it was made with no legal opinion in-hand. I requested that the official copies of the legal opinions be provided to the Board.

➡️ February 14, 2022 - Approximately 200 parents and community members showed up to the Board meeting to voice their disapproval and to demand that the Superintendent and Board walk back the decision. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GNgpu0lTGs

Background: I had drafted a bathroom policy for the district with the help of an attorney and requested that it be added to the agenda for discussion. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PcKODDTqbsHupIWDFCOj9kb4jAPJNnP5/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116108902577169991541&rtpof=true&sd=true

In response, Superintendent Firks and Board President (Lydda), drafted a resolution. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uhZgRrKXfU9DujvvKbnFCWpT-1EOlLQx/view?usp=sharing

I responded by drafting a counter resolution.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HEhVHx6ZkV5cZc-FUQyjdlfUNIE6mL1D/view?usp=sharing

I requested that my resolution be added to the agenda and sent a copy to the school board. Superintendent Firks and the Board President declined to add it to the agenda. I had also requested that a vote be taken on their resolution AFTER we heard the public discussion. My request was denied.

At the February 14 meeting, I stated that no resolution or policy was even necessary, and that the Board could choose to walk back the decision Superintendent Firks made.

The Dayton Daily News wrote an article covering the meeting. It is interesting that the School Board President fully admits that the Board reviewed a “proposed resolution” and that “the board had discussion on that issue in a closed, executive session”. According to Ohio Sunshine Law and legal advisors from the Ohio School Board Association… motions, resolutions, and policies are NEVER to be discussed in executive session and must be discussed in an open meeting. https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/parents-angry-about-transgender-policies-in-bethel-schools/7VMJVIV4BJCQPLQ7J6SS7WIK2M/

➡️ February 22, 2022 – I confirmed that Superintendent Firks had failed to follow & enforce the Title IX policy (AG 2266 for Board Policy 2266) for the district by having the student file a complaint of discrimination with one of the two Title IX Coordinators. http://go.boarddocs.com/oh/bethlsd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=C397H35E6A63

➡️ February 23, 2022 - I received an email from the central office regarding a policy some board members and the Superintendent wanted to pass at the upcoming work session on March 1st. Here is a portion of the email:
“Per our Neola rep, Norm Burkhardt, a motion and vote is all that is required (no 1st and 2nd reading). I have placed on the agenda to have the changes voted on in the work session.”

🚨🚨🚨This is a HUGE problem for several reasons:

∙ Why is a NEOLA rep being asked to give advice on a policy? The NEOLA Rep is not our legal representative, and he isn’t qualified to advise the Board. This is not the job of a NEOLA rep. The job of the NEOLA rep is to bring the Board policies that are crafted by NEOLA that fit the Ohio Revised Code and keep the Board in legal standing with ODE and the ORC.

∙ Why didn’t they ask an attorney for advice on things an attorney is paid to advise the Board on—such as following board policy?

∙ What the NEOLA rep appears to be suggesting is that we pass this in secret without doing a reading (typically new policies are read twice before adoption).

∙ It appears they want to now change the Title IX policy because the Superintendent didn’t follow it the first time.

∙ Why is this being rushed through under the cover of darkness without reaching out to the Community first to find out what their values are, so that the Board is truly representing them—not a single ideology or single agenda?

There is no evidence to support that someone was discriminated against. NOTHING exists anywhere in writing, so at the end of the day, we have a faceless, baseless claim that someone feels that something has been violated. That doesn’t stand the test of anything. A Title IX complaint was never filed, and remedy was never sought by the complainant.

Here is the policy that the Board is being asked to vote on at the work session on March 1, 2022 with NO PUBLIC READING. This proposed policy is not even accessible for public viewing on the Board Docs agenda. Why? Why are they trying to hide this from the public? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yr0_sZaSQt1mE1gyZMpfF6_aIz5xya-r/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116108902577169991541&rtpof=true&sd=true

Here are just a few problems I have with this policy:

∙ It does not appear to be a NEOLA policy. Where did this come from?

∙. They are pulling their terms & guidance from GLADD (Gay and Le***an Anti-Defamation League). That’s a bit one-sided.

∙ Ohio Revised Code does not dictate that a school district must allow a trans-identifying student to use the restroom of the student's chosen identity.

--->Most importantly!!!

01/31/2022

"School communities include families who have
competing worldviews. Out of respect for that
diversity, educators must consult with parents
and review policies frequently to ensure that
the policies are values-neutral and provide rea-
sonable accommodations for all points of view."

01/19/2022

https://www.advocatesprotectingchildren.org/post/newly-elected-school-board-member-caught-off-guard-by-trans-policy-announcement?fbclid=IwAR1WcSjZp4lUsispkJV9HgcwkoB4MBsDG5V4-tgo9diTHiN0FM_cEsc4RAw

Jessica Franz, a newly seated school board member in Ohio, reached out to Advocates Protecting Children when the chair of the school board on which she now sits announced a new policy around transgender-identified students' bathroom use, with neither discussion nor vote. She told us this: On Monday....