Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Staff Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee seeks clarification after state code changes on nonacademic staff training frequency
Summary
Policy updates include a provision that limits some nonacademic training to once every five years and up to 25 hours, but staff told the committee that most required trainings are mandated by federal or state law and thus supersede that limit; the committee asked staff to seek clarification on how the new code applies in practice.
The committee reviewed proposed revisions to the professional staff development policy that reference recent changes in state code. One part of the change states “the total frequency [and] duration of nonacademic training activities which each BCPS teacher is required to participate… once every 5 years up to 25 hours,” language that staff said appears to conflict with other statutes, funding requirements and federal mandates.
“All the ones we do are mandated by federal law or regulation,” a staff member said, listing examples such as bloodborne pathogen training, Title IX, seizure response and other required certifications. The staff member added that because those trainings are mandated, the five‑year/25‑hour limit in the new code does not, in practical terms, limit the trainings the division must provide.
Committee members pressed for clarity about which specific code or regulation governs each training requirement. Staff said they had asked for clarification and would report back; they warned that teachers might receive communications that appear to reduce required training and that could cause confusion.
Why it matters: The proposed policy language could be interpreted by staff or the public as reducing recurring mandatory training, but staff emphasized many trainings are legally required on an annual or other schedule tied to funding or statute. The committee discussed adding clearer cross‑references to the specific state or federal statutes and ensuring communications to teachers explain which trainings are mandatory.
Next steps: Staff will seek clarification on the statutory language and report back to the committee; members suggested the division annotate policy language with the specific code citations when feasible to reduce confusion.
