Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Threat Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews draft threat-assessment policy (8640) to formalize multidisciplinary team
Summary
District staff presented a proposed Threat Assessment Policy (8640) to formalize a multidisciplinary team to review students exhibiting threatening behavior; the board will consider the policy within 30 days.
District staff presented a draft Threat Assessment Policy (Policy 8640) and an accompanying plan to formalize a multidisciplinary threat assessment team to the Massapequa Board of Education.
Dr. McCaw, the district staff presenter, told the board the policy would authorize the superintendent to set up a monthly multidisciplinary team that includes staff members, law enforcement and district counsel to review referrals of students exhibiting concerning or threatening behavior. "The goal of the threat assessment team is to identify students who may be on that pathway to violence and give them the appropriate support that they need to take them off that pathway," McCaw said.
McCaw told the board the policy is not required under New York State law but is encouraged by the State Education Department and the research literature from federal agencies such as the FBI and Secret Service. "It is not a requirement under New York State law or regulation that a district have a threat assessment team, but it is encouraged by the state education department," McCaw said.
Board members asked how membership would be staffed and whether the roster should be kept fluid. One board member expressed concern about including an anti-discrimination clause in the policy and asked whether that language was necessary; McCaw said he would confer with legal counsel on that phrasing. McCaw explained the team membership is staggered with two‑year terms and that building-level staff who refer a student typically participate as visiting members so the team has staff familiar with the student's circumstances.
Dr. Brennan and board members confirmed the board will review the proposed policy and take action within 30 days. No formal vote was recorded at this meeting; the board scheduled consideration following the 30-day review period.
A member of the public and a local journalist later asked related questions during public comment. Jeffrey Aldebari, a journalist for the Long Island Advocate, asked whether the policy reflected a local need or was intended to align with peer districts; the district replied it was formalizing an existing, more informal process.
The transcript records discussion of training, reporting requirements, monthly meetings and the team—s multidisciplinary composition. Staff said reporting procedures and referral pathways are part of the draft policy; staff will return with any legal clarifications requested by board members.
