At the Jewell School Board meeting Monday, April 21, members of the audience shared their concerns with the school board regarding an incident that happened in March relating to illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia being found in the possession of a student. Because the matter was related to a minor the name(s) of those involved were not divulged, however, Lynne Cavin expressed concern that her class of 6th grade students perceived that there were no repercussions for violating the law because there was not a suspension issued, nor was the punishment made known.
The School Board discussed the legalities involved in protecting the identities of minors as well as the best way to handle such situations in a k-12 school, like Jewell, where the environment is different than an inner city school. Jones explained where the punishment could have included a year’s suspension, however such punishments rarely help students overcome problems and most look at such types of punishments [suspensions] as rewards. Cavin suggested that the school find a means in which to restrict socialization of these students with the rest of the student body. Many board members did not think ostracizing the child would help, although Board member Tania Skinner acknowledged that the school should do something to help children understand the harm of drugs.
Other audience members described programs that had been participated in the past. Superintendent Jones and Board member Samuelson described an upcoming proposal being considered by the Northwest Regional Educational Services District where each school would have a drug and alcohol counselor/educator because of the prevalent problem of substance abuse in schools throughout Oregon. Jones took notes on the suggestions being made. Another audience member suggested that Jones could go to the older students’ classrooms or send a letter home to let parents also know that the situation was being handled and the students involved had been meted appropriate sanctions.
The School board approved providing financial assistance for student Cheyenne Brewbaker to participate in a Spanish immersion program to Costa Rica. In her request for financial assistance, Brewbaker wrote to the board that in return for the help they provided her she offered to tutor other students in Spanish when she gets back.
Jones gave an update on the school’s progress to meet Oregon Department of Education (ODE) standards for textbook material for state approved curriculum. According to ODE the Academic Content Standards identify what Oregon students are expected to know and be able to do in the content areas of English language arts, mathematics, health, physical education, science, second language, social sciences, and the arts. These standards are one way to ensure that all Oregon students will have the opportunity to meet the rigorous demands of the 21st Century. Jones said that Health materials and Language Arts materials were the two areas that Jewell teachers were looking at to coordinate into the school’s curriculum.
The material being offered do not have to be used, however if it doesn’t meet the school’s particular needs the school must fill out a request to waive the material offered and propose alternative material showing how the proposed material meets the requirements for the state approved curriculum. When Jones first came to Jewell none of the material being used for classroom instruction had currently been approved by the state for a publicly funded k-12 school district. Jones has been working on ensuring that all classrooms are providing the currently approved material appropriate per state mandates.
Jones brought the community up to date on what was being discussed to find a permanent superintendent/principal for the school district. Per the timeline provided previously the policy manual should be fully updated and completed by November, 2008 and by then all policies should then be implemented per state mandate. The school district would be well into the Academic Content Standards and Instructional Materials rotation by the end of the school year 2009. The board discussed using OSBA or a private service to conduct the search for a permanent superintendent, deciding to allow both to make presentations to the board to show how they conduct searches for qualified superintendents. According to the timetable the goal is for a permanent superintendent to be hired by March or April 2009 so that the new superintendent can be a part of the budgetary process for the following school year and ready to take over full time duties at the first of July 2009.
At this juncture board member Allen Foster said that he had contacted some of the people who had signed the petition to recall board members Samuelson and Meiers and asked them why they had done so. According to Foster they had been told by the petition circulator that the school board had no intention of looking for a permanent superintendent, being satisfied to have Jones stay on in the position. Foster stated that that it was a blatant lie and that the board had never decided to completely suspend the search for a permanent superintendent. He said that the petitioner was someone who regularly attended the board meetings and knew that the board was only delaying the start date of the search until the school had come up to full compliance with state regulations. Foster thought that all those who signed the petition should be asked what they had been told before they signed the petition and that if they signed based on a lie it should invalidate the petition. No one in the audience replied to Foster.
According to Attorney General Hardy Meyers website forgery; misrepresentation of the intent or subject of the ballot measure; and collecting signatures from non-voters are common forms of petition circulating fraud. ORS 260.555 states: No person attempting to obtain signatures on, or causing to be circulated, an initiative, referendum or recall petition, shall knowingly make any false statement regarding the contents, meaning or effect of the petition to any person who signs it, attempts to sign it, is requested to sign it or requests information concerning it. Oregon election laws can be complex and those who have concerns regarding the recall petition should call the state elections office at 1 866 ORE VOTES.
Although a tentative executive session had been scheduled the board did not feel it necessary to go into executive session. The board took a five minute break to stretch before beginning the policy review with Oregon School Boards Association policy specialist, Peggy Holstedt. When the board reconvened no one in the audience had remained to learn of what policies were being proposed to be initiated by the school board.
Holstedt joined OSBA staff in June 2007. She worked closely with OSBA staff when drafting administrative rules for Oregon Department of Education and came to view – and henceforth advocate – school policies as “living documents” that are continuously updated, applicable and accessible. Holstedt has worked in education for 30 years, 15 in classrooms from grade 4 through college and 15 in administration, at building, district and state levels. She guided the board members through approximately one and half hours of reviewing policies and doing the first reading of them. This was the board members second opportunity at going over each policy together as a group as Jones had been over the policy in preliminary work sessions. The board was encouraged to ask questions of Holstedt and have a clear understanding of each policy that was being proposed for a first reading.
The board had decided to do a rolling review of the policies in order that they become immediately implemented after the second reading. In this manner by November of 2008 the whole policy book will be completely updated to state standards. OSBA sends out policy updates quarterly, using three types of identification. An “R” on the policy means it is a state requirement and the school district must have it as part of its policies; an “HR” meaning highly recommended, something which OSBA has seen cause problems in other schools or has legal implications if not used as a matter of policy; and those policies which have been recommended by other school districts, boards and principles that help guide a school board member but may or may not apply to all school districts so each district is free to determine if the policy is applicable to their district.
Prior to Monday evening, of the policies updated and reviewed, the newest policy in the district’s policy manual was dated 2004. Board members discussed policies regarding how to effectively communicate between members and parents who call them at home to discuss concerns. Holstedt cautioned board members to use the proper chain of communication as board members can be creating public records when they speak to parents about school issues. Most often this means the parent should be bringing their concern to the superintendent or principle. The board members should communicate to the parent who they should contact and give them the contact information. The board member should then call the superintendent so he is aware of the concern so it can be resolved.
Ethic violations were discussed in view of Senate Bill 10. An example of a reason to remove a superintendent from office was given. If a superintendent has the school district buy buses from a certain dealer and the dealer gives the superintendent tickets to a sporting event there would be grounds to suspend the superintendent. Policies will be in place for reimbursements of any funds. Free passes to any events cannot be given if the “but for” standard fails.
The board was able to address a few more policies regarding board committees, duties of board officers, board attorneys, and policies on using OSBA, before deciding to end the session. Board members will send Holstedt their recommendations if they note any changes that need to be addressed on the policies that were gone over before their second reading and adoption at next month’s meeting.
No comments:
Post a Comment