Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Representative topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Revere board debates student representative pilot, asks legal to draft policy
Summary
At a July 14 work session the Revere Local School District board discussed piloting a student board representative and related advisory options, with trustees split over rushing a September appointment. The board agreed to share draft language and ask the district attorney to prepare a formal policy for further review.
At its July 14 work session, the Revere Local School District board debated whether to pilot a student board representative this school year and agreed to ask legal to draft a formal policy before making any appointment.
The discussion centered on three approaches trustees have considered: allowing Student Voices (a high school group) to present regularly, appointing a single student board representative, and creating a superintendent-run student advisory panel. Chair said the conversation has been active for months and that he and other trustees had met with school leaders to explore options.
Board member (Speaker 1) pressed for caution, saying, “I just have a concern about how fast we're moving on this,” arguing a rushed selection could exclude students who did not join Student Voices last year. That concern was echoed by other trustees who urged time for outreach and a clearly advertised application process.
Supporters proposed a one-year pilot tied to existing Student Voices because the group already has mentorship from a staff member, Mr. Farris. Chair described that option as a way to “dip our toe in it” while mentoring student participants and evaluating whether the format should continue or be revised.
Trustees referenced external models when weighing fairness and structure. Board member (Speaker 4) described a Pittsburgh district policy that requires letters of recommendation and a formal application, saying the model “is very cohesive and detailed” and could inform a Revere policy to guard against perceived favoritism.
Rather than finalize a selection timeline, trustees agreed on next steps: share draft materials and comparable policies with the full board, and ask the district attorney to draft a proposed policy for consideration. The chair characterized the approach as exploratory, emphasizing that a draft would give the board something concrete to debate at a subsequent meeting.
The board did not vote on an appointment or formal adoption; trustees said any trial should be transparent, time-limited and subject to evaluation. The next procedural step is to receive the legal draft and continue discussion at a future meeting.
