Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Safety Searches topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Policy committee to send revised student-search policy to solicitor after adding parental-notification language
Summary
The Quakertown policy committee agreed Aug. 4 to send a revised student-search policy to its solicitor after members supported adding a written-record requirement and parental-notification language for certain searches.
Get email alerts on the Student Safety Searches topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The policy committee of the Quakertown Community School District on Aug. 4 reviewed proposed changes to Policy 226, which would require the district to keep a written record of all searches and to notify parents before any search that would involve an area that could contain undergarments unless “there is a significant safety issue.” Dr. Kelly Hoffman, who led the discussion, said the draft is a holdover from earlier meetings and reflects language supplied by Mr. O’Donnell.
The proposed language would allow an immediate search when there is a safety concern — for example, when a weapon is suspected — but otherwise would require parents to be contacted before a search that involves removal of or looking in areas that could contain undergarments. “The first is that the board would like for a written record to be kept of all searches that happen,” Hoffman said. “And the second is that if there is any instance where a child should be asked, to be searched in any area that would contain an undergarment … that parents be notified, first before that happens. Unless there is a significant safety issue.”
Committee members agreed, on a preliminary reading, that the language was acceptable to send to legal counsel for formal review. Mr. Kern said his “first reading seems okay, at least to get to the solicitor,” and the committee asked staff to forward the draft to solicitor Jeff Garton for legal vetting before the policy returns to committee for formal action. Hoffman said the administration had no concerns with the edits but noted the related administrative regulation (AR) would be updated only after the policy is adopted.
The committee did not adopt the policy on Aug. 4. Instead it documented directions for staff to submit the revised draft to the solicitor, and to place the solicitor-reviewed version on the next policy-committee agenda for possible formal recommendation to the full board.

