Policy committee posts multiple proposed policy revisions for public review, including CROWN Act protections and new ID rules

The East Stroudsburg Area SD Policy Review Committee on April 20 authorized posting a package of revised district policies for public review during the month of April and asked that the full board consider formal action in May.

The committee directed administration to post revised drafts of policy 221 (dress and grooming), policy 236.1 (threat assessment), policy 325 (dress and grooming/employee ID), policy 332 (working periods), policy 209 (health examinations and dental screenings), policy 305 (employment of classified support staff), policy 306 (employment of substitute, short‑term and summer school employees), and policy 707 (use of facilities). Policy 815 was held for further consideration. The motion was moved and seconded and carried by voice vote; the committee scheduled the next meeting for May 18, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. in the Carlton C. Gore Administration Building and online.

Why it matters: the draft changes touch routine operations and student safety. Key changes would add explicit anti‑discrimination language protecting protective hairstyles (locks, braids, twists, coils, Bantu knots, afros, extensions) and religious head coverings in the dress-and-grooming policy; introduce clearer rules for school-issued photo IDs and visible-wear lanyards for older students and district employees; align threat-assessment procedures with recent Act 55 updates to the school code; refine when medical and dental examinations and screenings are required; consolidate multiple support-staff employment policies into a single reference tied to compensation plans and collective bargaining language; and update the district’s use-of-facilities rules and fee classifications.

On student IDs and lanyards, committee discussion centered on grade thresholds and safety. The draft requires school-issued photo IDs to be on a person or visible on a lanyard: K–5 students must carry their ID on their person or on a lanyard, and the proposal would require students in grades 6–12 to visibly wear a lanyard or clip the ID on the front torso. Committee members debated phasing the visible-lanyard requirement (e.g., start at older grades and expand to lower grades such as third grade) and noted the practical need for breakaway lanyards and an in-house process for rapid replacement when IDs are lost. Staff said replacement badges can be printed in house and delivered by courier once per day; interim picture stickers were discussed as a short-term identifier while replacements are processed. The draft leaves the question of replacement fees and discipline for repeated loss to the forthcoming code-of-conduct language.

The dress-and-grooming edits add non‑discrimination language consistent with anti‑bias laws referenced in the discussion (committee members referred to the CROWN Act principles) and specify that the board may set reasonable standards "within law" to avoid disruption to district operations.

Policy 236.1 would require the district’s threat-assessment procedures to include timely consultation, as appropriate, with law enforcement, juvenile justice, county agencies, health care providers and behavioral health providers, and to permit exchange of relevant information consistent with state and federal requirements. Committee members described that the change reflects Act 55 updates in the Pennsylvania school code.

Health and dental policy changes in policy 209 are substantive: the draft consolidates and clarifies when exams or screenings are required (medical examinations on original entry, sixth and 11th grade, and for new students whose records lack a comprehensive exam; dental screenings on original entry, third and seventh grade, and for new students), accepts private exams performed within one year of the required date, and requires the district to provide vision, hearing, height/weight and scoliosis screenings on intervals the district establishes. The draft also adds language about parental refusal: if a parent or guardian refuses district-provided services, the student will be documented as non‑compliant and the district may limit participation in activities where missing health information creates a safety risk. Committee members asked staff to reconcile terminology to ensure consistency between "examination" and "screening" where the school code and Act 55 use different terms.

On operational and personnel policies, the committee approved consolidation of several classified support and substitute employment policies into new, renumbered policy language (the draft removes redundant, highly specific listings and instead references applicable compensation plans and collective-bargaining agreements). Members asked staff to include full legal citations when the consolidated draft is returned for board approval.

Communications and facilities: committee members discussed adding a "community corner" portion of the district website to host community nonprofit flyers and event PDFs with a clear disclaimer that postings are not district‑sponsored; staff said initial setup is the largest labor item, and monthly updates afterward should require only an hour or two. The draft of policy 707 (use of facilities) also adds event definitions (minimum four hours, maximum eight), personnel labor rates, clarifies prohibited dates (legal holidays and district closures), and updates fee classifications and applicant responsibilities.

Next step: the committee authorized posting the drafts for public review during April; the administration will return the items for board consideration in May. The committee set its next meeting for May 18, 2026, at 4:30 p.m. at the Carlton C. Gore Administration Building and online.

Clarifying details: the posting motion specified public review during April and "subsequent board action in May"; committee members expressly held policy 815 from the posting motion; staff indicated ID replacements are produced in‑house and couriered once per day; the health policy revision cites Act 55 and Pennsylvania school code language and asks staff to confirm consistent use of "examination" vs. "screening."