My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/25/2007 SCHOOL COMMITTEE Minutes
>
10/25/2007 SCHOOL COMMITTEE Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/18/2018 5:07:55 PM
Creation date
4/18/2018 1:46:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
SCHOOL COMMITTEE
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/25/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
School.Committee Workshop <br /> October 25, 2007 <br /> Minutes <br /> Attendees: Marylose Grady, Ralph Marcelli, Kathy Stanley, Richard Bailey, and Janice Mills. Also present <br /> were attorney Mary Joann Reedy, Louise Doyle, Patricia De> oer, Lou Ann St. Cyr, Ellen Bankston, Carla <br /> Thomas, and Ann Bradshaw <br /> I. Mrs. Grady called the meeting to order at :1 o a.m. at the Mashpec Senior Center. <br /> 11. The following items were discussed: <br /> A. Case study: Captaincy appeal process <br /> Mary Jo Reedy outlined the issues. <br /> A basic premise ofdiscipline is the entitlement to due process. <br /> When the initial disciplinary action was talon, no notice was given ofany other penalty. <br /> Although notice is provided in the handbook, the language is somewhat ambiguous. <br /> The verbal notice ofthe loss of captaincy was adding an additional punishment. <br /> Parents had viable claims. <br /> Stating that the penalty was too harsh was pushing the edge ofthe policy. <br /> Finding for the appeal was legally correct and fair- <br /> Due <br /> ainflue process was not provided and <br /> Under the new policy, students would not be punished <br /> Under the new policy, even mitigating circumstances do not provide discretion for <br /> administrators if there is a finding that a student violated the substance policy. <br /> Two factors in appeals <br /> L Procedural due process-was thea notice and an opportunity for a hearing? <br /> 2. Substantive- is the evidence reliable is the student guilty? <br /> Expulsion of students: except for instances of felony, drugs, weapons, or assault on a staff` <br /> member in which there is no allowance for school committee discretion), all other ultimate <br /> expulsion is of school committee discretion. <br /> Lessons Learned <br /> Implementation of policy-accurate consequences applied. <br /> Clarity of policy is critical. <br /> Timing ofthe punishment-it is not fair to add on puri bm nt-double jeopardy. <br /> Discipline letters need to be carefully constructed; spoken communication leaves no record. <br /> Community should understand that thea is a need for flexibility e.g. A fight can be a quick <br /> scuffle or very violent). <br /> Training for administrators. <br /> Due process <br /> What penalties exist, what are the expectations for penalties` <br /> Policies are subject to revision. If there is concern about a policy, school committee and <br /> administrators should discuss. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.