At the Jan. 22 meeting, committee members reviewed Policy 413 (family and community partnerships) and discussed whether the single policy should cover both parent engagement (PTA/PTO/other family involvement) and formal community partnerships (service providers, vendors, consortia). Staff described existing work: Tiana Hale manages community partnerships and a coordinator (Ivania/Evania) supports parent‑facing services.

Committee members proposed multiple edits: add clear definitions (family, community partner, resource partner, formal partnership), reference PTA national standards for family–school partnerships, and state expectations for partnership agreements. Several members urged that the policy signal that formal partnerships should include measurable expectations for effectiveness and that the board expects evaluation of return on investment for funded partnerships.

Members also raised the recurring consortium question: applicants for consortium grants must obtain a letter of support from the district, but the district does not control consortium funding or oversight. Staff noted the difference between formal partnership agreements (MOUs/contracts) and informal community relationships (mentors, volunteers), and recommended cross‑referencing the district’s partnership guidance on the FCPS website.

Some committee members suggested splitting the topic into two clearer policies — one articulating the board’s vision and expectations for family engagement and another governing formal community partnerships and contract/MOU requirements — while others recommended keeping a single policy with strong definitions and cross references to regulations and implementation guidance. Staff will incorporate definitions and examples, consult with Tiana Hale and her team, and return with revised language on the timeline they publish for the 400‑series work.