Section K: School-Community-Home Relations

Updates Causing Significant Changes to Operations

  • Policy Briefs from Oct. 13, 2016 BOE Meeting

    Posted by Donna Richer on 10/17/2016

    JC School Attendance Areas, JEB Entrance Age Requirements, JF-E, JF-R Admission and Denial of Admission, JFAA Residency Requirements for Admission, JFAB Continuing Enrollment of Students Who Become Nonresidents, JFBA, JFBA-R Intra-District Choice/Transfer, JFBB Inter-District Choice

    The policies listed have been reviewed and compared with CASB.  Updates in CASB’s policies were incorporating into existing D49 policies when doing so did not contradict our current practices.  For example, CASB refer to Open Enrollment which is not something we do as we now have the School of Choice window open all year.  References to Open Enrollment were removed and titles were changed to match CASB.

    Any additions that reflected updated nondiscriminatory language were added.

    CASB Special Policy Update

    AC, AC-E-1, AC-E-2, AC-E-3, AC-R Nondiscrimination/Equal Opportunity, JB Equal Educational Opportunities for Students, JF Admission and Denial of Admission, JICDE Bullying Prevention and Restorative Interventions, JII Student Concerns, Complaints and Grievances

    The CASB August updated primarily added transgender to sexual orientation in each policy.  I also added/updated language from the CASB policies into the district policies.  There were a few minor clerical changes to align with the district’s official branding guide.  As usual technology references were appropriately updated.  JB-R looks like it was deleted and should remain as such.

    JK, JK-R Student Discipline

    In policy JK, the primary changes were made to align the policy with CASB guidance.  Some language was changed to align how documents are accessed with current practice.   Hence, parents are directed to access the district’s webpage versus having building administrators mandatorily print and distribute the information in every case.  If a parent does not have the capability to access the internet, a school official could certainly print the information on a case by case basis.

    In regulation JK-R, there was local guidance and procedures pertaining to discipline records before the part of the regulation that closely mirrors CASB.  The local guidance was not aligned with FERPA; therefore, I consulted the US Department of Education’s Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO).  I replaced the local guidance with the FPCO’s model notification and aligned the district’s challenge procedures accordingly.

    FERPA requirements are covered under another policy.  Aligned both the policy and regulation with CASB by deleting redundant FERPA guidance.

    JKF, JKF-R Educational Alternatives for Expelled Students

    In regulation JKF-R, I deleted the reference to the Director of Pupil Services since the district does not have one.  I clarified that “in writing” includes electronic means as well as physical.  I also changed the regulation POC to the Executive Director of Individualized Education since the education of expelled students (e.g. Excel, etc.) falls under IE.  Although policy JKF is not on the revision list, the policy also needs to be assigned to the Executive Director of Individualized Education under the aforementioned rationale as well.  The separation of powers framework for students recommended for expulsion utilizes the Director of Culture and Services as the Hearing Officer following Individualized Education’s review of the school’s expulsion request, accompanying discipline documentation, and the student’s individualized education status.

    KE Public Concerns and Complaints

    I aligned the policy with the CASB sample.  I updated the policy to synchronize with the district’s current leadership hierarchy.  I added a segue to policy KEA.

    I assume having this policy draws a distinction between a complaint and a grievance because to believe otherwise would negate the need for policy KE.  I could make a case that technically when a person initially meets with the DCS or DHR about an issue we are acting under policy KE.  Hence when we ask whether the person has addressed this issue to their leadership, we are evaluating whether to use KE versus KEA.  When we exercise the right under KE to mitigate the complaint without a KEA grievance, we are still acting within policy KEA.  If the complaint is not resolved and meets the criteria for KEA, then the DCS or DHR will provide guidance on filing a grievance.  Since some complaints are so clearly policy violations, it would be prudent to bypass KE and move directly to KEA.  However, when a person files a grievance under KEA without an initial meeting, it is still appropriate to determine if KE is more appropriate.

    Comments (-1)


By Month

Filter by Tag