Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Athletics And Regents topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent urges Seaford board to fund assistant coaches and seeks clarity on regents 'hold harmless' practice
Summary
A Seaford parent urged the district to pay and equally staff assistant coaching positions across varsity teams and pressed administrators for clarification on the district's 'hold harmless' approach to regents exams and themed review sessions; administrators said students are expected to take regents and that 'hold harmless' does not exempt students from testing.
Kelly Grosser, a Seaford resident and parent, used the resident-comment period to press the Seaford Union Free School District for greater equity in how assistant coaching positions are staffed and compensated and to raise implementation concerns about the district’s pilot of themed review sessions and its interaction with regents exams.
Grosser said several varsity teams lack paid assistant coaches and that some assistant coaches have been volunteering, which she described as unfair. "It's either all or none," she said, urging that either all varsity teams have paid assistant coaches or none do. She also described practical problems with themed review sessions (students asked to attend multiple themed sessions), noting scheduling conflicts and large group sizes that she said made it difficult for students to benefit equally.
District officials answered during the public-comment period that they would take the concerns and follow up with written communication. A district representative clarified: "The expectation is that every student takes the regent's exam; hold harmless does not mean that you are exempt from taking the regent exam." Officials characterized the themed review approach as a procedure piloted this year rather than a formal board policy and said they would tighten procedures and communications if the program continues, and offer extra help for students with scheduling conflicts when possible.
The board did not take immediate policy action during the comment period; administrators said they would gather feedback and provide additional information to address logistical issues and clarify how hold-harmless treatments are applied. The board later proceeded with routine agenda approvals and moved to executive session for employee, legal and negotiation matters.
