The use of suspensions by schools is evidenced to create more academic problems and legal difficulties without any benefit to context. (https://bit.ly/3PZ2tZU)
During the 03/09/2022 BOE Meeting, the District had an opportunity to tackle the very significant issue of Substance Use and Abuse through an evidence-based approach.
This policy provided the District with not only an opportunity to effectively tackle the substance use issue in our schools. It also represented an obvious opportunity to add a measurable, evidence-based step connected to the DEI plan, and substance use disorder is recognized as a disability.
Dr. Varley’s objection during this meeting was that the state legally codified the approach, which turned out to be incorrect. School Districts have great latitude in how they approach the issue of substance abuse, an argument presented with supporting evidence by Dr. Foregger.
Dr. Foregger encouraged the BOE to table the policy for further discussion for this the reasons above, and to their credit, the BOE agreed.
Between the time of this meeting and the 05/25/2022 meeting, I sent BOE members three emails regarding this policy.
The first email was sent in March (https://bit.ly/3MZdRmn)
The second email was sent in April (https://bit.ly/3wN6xmY)
The third email was sent in May, prior to the 05/25/2022 meeting (https://bit.ly/38VtAUW)
In response to my final email, Ms. Akiris responded (excerpt):
“……..
The language in this policy is punitive and that’s not how we handle young adults. Suspensions are not the answer IMHO.
We need to collaborate and work together with counselors, parents and these young adults in coming up with a plan that helps address the core issues instead of punishing them.
I also agree this can be an opportunity to add precision to our DEI plan.
…….”
Ms. Stanley also responded (excerpt):
“Hi John,
This I believe is the first email I have seen from you on this topic.
What exactly in R 5530 Substance Abuse would you want to change?”
Ms. Stanley’s request for suggestions occurred as a response to my third email about this topic, and on the same day, the meeting was to be held.
In her comments on this policy before the vote, Ms. Stanley does not address the main issue at the heart of the debate – which was the use of suspensions as a consequence but rather the school’s immediate response to a student if they were under the influence – which was not the subject of the debate.
She also appeared to conflate the state of being under the influence with testing positive for a substance. Cannabis, as an example, can show positive on a drug screen weeks after a student has used the substance. In my opinion, Ms. Stanley’s response demonstrates either a gross misunderstanding of the issue or an attempt to deflect from the main point, which was the use of suspensions as a consequence. This is a clip of her comment:
Dr. Foregger and Ms. Akiri were the only two BOE members who voted against the reviewed substance abuse policy.
They both advocated for a policy more consistent with guidance and evidence established by National Health bodies. Here is a clip of Dr. Foregger’s remarks:
If we want to help tackle the significant issues facing our students today, the BOE must look at the available research and have an open mind in connection to these issues. BOE members must engage with the community and genuinely listen and obtain feedback well before decisions are put to the vote. They should also educate themselves in reviewing research and speaking to members of the community-especially parents.
This vote was missed opportunity to add meat to our DEI plan and, more importantly, help our students in a real and meaningful way.
Video clip of my comments during the meeting:
