Family Engagement Survey - February 25 to March 24, 2020 - Learn More

The committee reviewed 2151P as requested during the first committee meeting. Members were asked to bring additional concerns, questions, or areas they believed to be important for review. Areas/ideas focused on during this discussion included:

  • Sanctions:
    • Problem exists that sanctions are not equitable within a school and between schools. Different individuals provide different consequences in similar situations.
      • Interpretations of the language in 2151P may be different between administrations, etc.
    • A suggestion was provided to have the committee think about the creation of one ‘body’ to determine sanctions – this ‘body’ would provide decisions for all four schools.
  • Investigations: needs to be conducted by more than one person. There needs to be more than one person involved in gathering information.
    • During an investigation – there needs to be a full review of self-reports and how these can be treated as educational in nature.
    • A question was raised regarding the training of individuals on how to recognize students/individuals under the influence.
  • Committee dug into topics discussed during the first meeting deeper – there were no new areas in 2151P that the group felt needed to be added to the list created in the first meeting.
  • The committee discussed the language used – described as too wordy and difficult to access in some instances, especially for parents and students.
  • The need for clear definitions to be added to the language was discussed, without become too ‘lawyerly.’ There needs to remain the opportunity for schools to apply the procedure
    • Sanctions / Consequence / Discipline / Corrective Action (used in 3241P)
    • Self-Report
    • Honest
    • Cooperative
    • Non-Sport Activity
    • “Double Jeopardy”
    • Minimum standards for an investigation
      • This should be a stand-alone section
    • 3241P: In this procedure the guidance to take into account the maturity of the child is important. This guidance is lacking in 2151P.
    • The use of exhibits / examples to help guide implementation would be beneficial to athletes, parents, coaches, and administrators.
    • What are a menu of options for a ‘corrective action?’ Can this be added?
    • Vaping as it applies to tobacco v drugs, etc. is important.
    • 3241P: the language specific to drugs is very clear and also flexible. How can this be replicated in 2151P?
      • How to balance corrective action as outlined with safety concerns for athletes who are using drugs/alcohol?

The group would like to see the current language in 2151P reordered to mirror 3241P, to include areas that need clarification / gaps in the language. Jeff will work to complete this ahead of the next scheduled meeting.

Next Meeting: February 2, 2017, 5:00pm-6:30pm at the ESC-West Suite 308.