Committee considers trimming high‑school sections of clubs policy and defining non‑faculty advisers

The policy review committee reviewed policy 5‑212 on student clubs and activities and debated whether parts of the policy are inapplicable to the district’s K–8 configuration.

Multiple members said the policy’s curricular sections — those tied to academic credit and high‑school programs — appear irrelevant because the district does not operate a high school. Speaker 7 and others recommended either striking those sections or asking the attorney whether they can be eliminated, while retaining definitions and sections that govern non‑curricular student groups that meet outside instructional time.

Committee members also discussed supervision and funding for clubs. Adriana raised a concern that some after‑school offerings are run by outside contractors and that classifying an adviser strictly as a district employee could limit the district’s ability to contract for outside providers. Speaker 7 proposed creating parallel terms (for example, “faculty adviser” and “non‑faculty adviser”) and suggested applying the same participation restrictions to non‑faculty advisers to limit the chance that outside partners would overstep or attempt to proselytize.

Members generally supported keeping requirements that clubs have an on‑campus adult who oversees safety and conduct but debated whether a sponsored adult may actively participate or must only supervise. The group settled on noting needed edits in the draft and forwarding them to the board attorney for clarification about funding, employee status and sponsorship.

Next steps: the committee will mark curricular sections for potential deletion or attorney review, add definitions for non‑faculty advisers where appropriate, and return a redlined draft to counsel before the next meeting on February 25.