Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Suicide Prevention Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
USDB committee amends and approves suicide-prevention policy after line-by-line revisions
Summary
After line-by-line review, the committee amended wording (training requirements, terminology, data-driven language, protective factors and reentry language), clarified SafeUT’s role as advisory and approved the suicide-prevention policy on first reading to forward to the board.
The USDB standing committee completed detailed, clause-by-clause revisions and approved a revised suicide-prevention policy on March 17, forwarding draft 1 as amended to the full board for second and final reading.
Key changes adopted included replacing past-tense phrasing in section 4.12 so required professionals 'must be' trained, changing 'caring school climate' to 'supportive school environments' (6.1), and narrowing a data paragraph in 6.2 to require professional development 'based on current data.' Members removed 'agitation' and 'intoxication' as stand-alone triggers and instead focused on 'overt risk factors such as the act of self-harm' to prompt response.
The committee added protective-factor language drawn from code: 'methods of strengthening the family and a youth’s relationships in the school and community.' Members also struck several introductory paragraphs (3.1–3.4) judged to be aspirational rather than policy, and replaced 'should' with 'shall' in a provision directing that postvention materials be shared in classroom or small-group settings; the sentence recommending against public-address announcements was removed.
SafeUT and reentry: members questioned whether individualized safety plans should be housed in the SafeUT application. Staff clarified that SafeUT can provide a 'return-to-learn' checklist that may help the reentry team determine readiness, but the actual decision rests with a reentry meeting (principal/director, psychology team, parent/guardian and student as appropriate). The committee removed a paragraph that would have required uploading individual plans to SafeUT and added text stating SafeUT 'may help the team determine' return-to-school readiness.
Training cadence: the group discussed statutory three-year training requirements for licensed educators and the value of more frequent reminders for other staff. Staff and counsel confirmed code requires a three-year full training cycle for licensed employees; the committee retained the code-aligned cadence while recognizing local practice can include annual reminders or lighter 'off-year' refreshers.
Vote and next steps: after accepting the amendments, the committee voted unanimously to approve draft 1 on first reading and forward it to the full board for second and final reading. The committee asked staff to align citations with code where needed and to provide the redlined language it produced for the board packet.
Attribution: policy text and statutory citations discussed at the meeting were supplied by USDB staff and reviewed by USBE staff and legal counsel in the meeting record.
