The regional Board of Ed for the high schools held a 7pm meeting to discuss Board goals for the coming year, and an 8pm meeting to continue the public discussion on the student conduct disciplinary code for students charged by police for activities unrelated to school. As the 8pm meeting involved greater public debate, readers will find that summary first followed by the 7pm summary.
Summary of the 8pm meeting
The Board’s 8pm meeting was held in the IHHS auditorium. The Public Discussion focused on the disciplinary code for students. This public discussion has been ongoing for a year and has resulted in a code that previously focused on punishment and has now been “watered down” to include remedial action such as counseling for substance abuse. Although the vast majority of public comments have been against the Board extending their authority into the judicial arena, they are confident that letters, emails and private expressions of support indicate that their proposal is correct.
Weary residents once again addressed opposition to a proposal, but after a year of discussion it was difficult for them to offer any new arguments that might sway The Board from implementing the policy. One resident questioned why their was such a major focus on substance abuse in the school and so little debate on the issue of violence and bullying. For the 2005-2006 year, the district reported 6 incidents of students in possession of illegal substances and 37 incidents of violence.
Another resident raised the scenario of a student charged by law enforcement and is then instructed by counsel not to discuss the matter until it is resolved; this would prevent the child from defending themselves at a school hearing. The Board acknowledged that this would most likely lead to the suspension of extra-curricular activities. There was one resident who spoke for the first time on the subject and questioned the legitimacy of The Board extending their authority into the home. He did not believe his vote for members of the district board was a vote to adjudicate his child, and expressed the feeling that there was something inherently wrong with a proposal that usurped parental authority and entered the realm of judicial process.
The Board continues to defend the policy based on the results of a survey administered to students. They believe the problem is so severe that students need “ammunition” to fight off temptations to drink or do drugs. Although questioned during the public session as to whether this proposal was a referendum on the parenting skills of local residents, The Board continued to offer the argument that it was only seeking to offer students an excuse to resist temptations. Previous articles describing details of the proposal are Judge, Jury and Education and Rights, Rules & Responsibility.
An agenda item not fully discussed during the meeting is the policy on bullying. As mentioned previously, there were six times as many incidents of violence in the school in comparison to substance abuse issues. The school is required to formulate a bullying policy that meets minimum State standards.
The other topic of note concerned Board member Ira Belsky’s concern that salaries were not always being properly clarified for the Board, and that he was essentially being kept in the dark on matters requiring a Board vote. The specific incident which led to some heated exchanges concerned the salary of one employee who was regularly making an additional twenty thousand dollars for working extended hours. Efforts have since been instituted to provide the Board with a more clear description of an employee’s compensation package, but other members took exception to member Blesky’s insinuation that something shady was occurring. There was an extended back and forth of tense exchanges, but the Board was able to move forward with business after one member stepped forward to provide clarification of both sides and an explanation of the process in the future.
Summary of the 7pm meeting
The Regional Board Ed was pleased to see the attendance of residents at their 7pm meeting in the district conference room. Although regularly scheduled, most residents only attend the 8pm session and Board members welcomed the interest of those residents in attendance. This meeting discussed general goals of the Board for the coming school year. High on the list was the implementation of a survey that will seek input from recent graduates and their parents as to the effectiveness of the Guidance services offered. This would be a holistic evaluation involving all services offered, but there would also be particular interest in college readiness and the application process.
Besides improving the process that helps students achieve their higher education goals, the Board is also interested in identifying the number of students who may apply to an inordinate amount of schools. Each student application to a college does require school resources be dedicated to the submission, and understanding the number of applications and number of acceptances might be useful in creating a pragmatic approach that protects students options while guarding against an indiscriminate use of resources. Examining the process of following students further into their college career was also discussed. This would help the Board evaluate the college readiness of students, and if they found themselves fully prepared for the rigors of college life.
The topic of final exams, a subject raised by a resident at a previous meeting, was brought up for discussion. This focused on the utility of final exams being based on a full year, and if this was more a test of memorization than of learning. The Board will continue to discuss the logistics of planning exams that are closer to college structure which are designed around 10 or 12 weeks of work.
Additional topics included examination of standardized testing and the need to communicate more fully with the public so as to have a more fully informed public when the next budget is presented.