Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Discipline Policies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arrowhead students urge board to reconsider EPAS bathroom-pass system
Summary
Students during public comment criticized a new EPAS pass system they say restricts bathroom breaks, citing limits such as seven weekly uses and prohibitions on consecutive period exits; they asked the board to investigate and said administration did not notify students or parents beforehand.
At the public-comment portion of the Arrowhead District School Board meeting, student commenters raised concerns about a newly implemented EPAS pass system that they said restricts bathroom and passing privileges.
JP Moore Moyer, speaking as a student commenter, said the system imposes limits such as restricting bathroom access during consecutive long class periods and setting weekly and daily caps. "It puts restrictions on basic human needs," he said. He described rules reported by students: a limit of seven bathroom uses in a week, a cap of three daily uses in some accounts, and a rule barring a student from visiting the bathroom two consecutive class periods (the speakers said periods are 1 hour and 30 minutes long). JP and other students said hallway monitors sometimes intercepted students they said were responding to emergencies.
The students told the board they had not been informed about the policy in advance and asked that the administration report the details to the governing board. "I talked to Chris Farris," one commenter said, referring to a board member who was absent; "he also reported the same thing." The students asked that the policy be limited to students who are actually abusing hall passes rather than applied to all students.
Board President (identified in the meeting as the presiding officer) reminded the audience that public comment is a one-way opportunity and said the board would note the comments. Board members offered no immediate policy changes during the meeting; the students were told the board had limited time to review the matter and that members could appear at a future meeting.
No formal motion or vote occurred during the public-comment item; the students sought follow-up and said they could provide written evidence and contact information to board members.
The transcript records the students— descriptions of limits and enforcement practices as the basis for their concerns. The board did not announce specific next steps or an investigatory assignment during the public meeting.
