Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Updates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Littlestown Area SD reviews model policy updates on discipline, threats, child‑abuse reporting and suicide prevention
Summary
District staff reviewed proposed model-policy language from PSBA on student discipline, terroristic threats, child-abuse reporting and suicide prevention; staff recommended keeping several model provisions, clarifying volunteer training, and adding coordination and confidentiality guidance for suicide-response procedures.
Littlestown Area SD staff reviewed proposed revisions to several district policies during a policy-review session, recommending the board retain certain model-language provisions and adopt new sections on threat reporting, parent notification and suicide-prevention coordination.
A district staff member, presenting the proposed changes, said the updates largely reflect model-policy language from the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA) and federal reporting requirements. “In accordance with federal law, possession, or discharge of a firearm in or within a thousand feet of the school grounds, prohibited violations shall be reported to the appropriate law enforcement,” the staff member said.
The staff member told the board the proposed edits include several distinct items the district should consider keeping: explicit inclusion of certain student activities in the code of conduct for discipline matters; a footnote clarifying the district’s definition of “replica” weapons; and a provision allowing the board, in cases of expulsion, to require “competent and credible evidence from the behavioral service provider that the student does not pose a risk of harm to others” before readmission. The presenter said that last provision is present in the district’s current policy and would remain.
On terroristic-threats language, the presenter said the draft adds an explicit reference to students with disabilities, including students whose evaluation is pending, and adds wording that staff members and students share responsibility for informing the district’s threat-assessment team when they become aware of possible threats. The staff member said the district already practices safety reporting and referenced Safe2Say (a tip-reporting program) as covered by the proposed language.
The child-abuse policy changes prompted discussion about volunteer training and evidence-gathering steps for mandated reporters. District staff recommended against requiring volunteers to complete the district’s child-abuse recognition and reporting training, saying volunteers are always supervised by employees who are responsible for reporting. The presenter also confirmed the district’s existing practice authorizes employees, after an initial report, to take photographs of suspected abuse and submit those images to the county agency either when the written report is sent or within 48 hours.
The draft suicide-awareness, prevention and response policy contains multiple new or updated sections, the presenter said, including (1) a commitment to provide age- and developmentally appropriate supports and resources to all students without bias or discrimination; (2) newly defined terms and curricular references; (3) a role for counseling staff to support students exposed to prevention programming; and (4) procedures for risk screening, response to attempts and reentry after an attempt. The presenter recommended that the board accept PSBA’s updated wording in many places.
Board members asked for clarifications on confidentiality and parent notification. The presenter told the board that information indicating a student poses a risk of harm to self or others is not confidential and must be shared with “the appropriate people,” including parents or guardians where required. The presenter and one board member discussed whether policy language should use “shall” or “may” when describing the district’s duty to provide resources to parents; the presenter said the current draft uses “shall” in some lines and recommended confirming that choice.
The presenter recommended adding suicide-prevention coordination language that would explicitly align the suicide-response team’s membership with the threat-assessment team and designate staff responsible for screening. They also said methods of assessment and steps for responding to attempts in the draft come from PSBA model language and are largely new to the district’s policy manual.
No formal votes or motions were recorded in the transcript of the discussion. Staff recommended retaining most PSBA model provisions, not requiring volunteers to complete mandated‑reporting training, keeping the district’s current photographic-evidence procedure, and adopting new suicide‑prevention coordination and assessment language.
The board’s next steps were not specified in the transcript provided.
