backup is here; public comment summary is here; redline is here
Martinez notes there's no money attached to this
strategic about what is in regs; "want to be nimble"
"not intended to create a significant financial burden to any of our districts"
balancing making sure that our children's needs are being met
 |
whereas even the public comment noted that much of the programming out there is fallible
Martinez: ensure communication that really approaches the rights of students rather than so much else communication that goes out to families
I think this underestimates how important some of that communication is
learning with the districts
Rocha: what are the financial implications?
Martinez: there are rights of students around IEPs that we have to protect
encouraging also communication and inclusiveness
is it at any point going to occur to anyone that we've also been saying that multilingualism is a skill; employment of some of our immigrant communities is needed
and yet: they are dropping the requirement that machine translation be reviewed if it does not have implications of student legal rights
Smidy: what steps should schools have in place as this is coming?
Woo: have already established training courses? Those will be modified to match what these requirements are
there was a note that the onus is on vendors working with districts on low-incidence languages to align with these new requirements
updates for statewide vendors
Training is free
Hills: you'd be surprised that there are significant costs incurred through the coming year
Martinez: "there's no way for us to know"
"the communication exists today, the rights of our students exist today"
"this will not be the last time that we are asked from the legislature to" put into place "with no money, with little money" something
"we are the in-between"
"we don't pass regs and then leave them alone...we should be constantly looking to" how they're implemented
to legislators: "Treat us as thought partners...give us that respect"
"very disappointing to see so many things passed this year without resources"
"every time we implement regulations...let's make sure...help us understand it"
I am betting against myself here that we're going to get through this whole conversation about budgeting without mentioning the actual budget authority
nuances you can't really test until you put it into place
calling out the right tensions, because they exist on both sides
Craven: "it's also going to be how you prioritize" uh, sure it is
"just something we give to the districts...we're like the smoothing out body"
Smidy there is real capacity issues; literally no one available to translate
appreciate that we have a year to figure it out, because need to make sure schools have time to figure it out
Stewart: what is machine translation
translator review comes after the translation?
are we universally using closed loop services so there aren't going to be unintended consequences?
this should be in the regs
Martinez: "we can lift up" those using machine translation that is high quality in the guidance
it is not appropriate for it to only be in the guidance; confidentiality is federal law
Woo: there are other laws and regulations and statutes that guard confidentiality
Stewart: it would be terrible if a district with no funding available depended on machine services
Woo: (goes back to has 'to be reviewed,' which means she's missed the point, entirely; dumping kids information a chatbot for translation is a violation of FERPA)
Martinez: there's nothing that you're approving today that is changing
"Staff are very protective" we have national press in which staff are saying they're using machines to create IEPs...so I'm going to say depending on that is wildly optimistic
No comments:
Post a Comment