Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monroe board pushes staff to draft a clear 0‑tolerance substance‑use policy for schools
Summary
Board members pressed district staff to convert an informal 0‑tolerance approach into explicit board policy after hearing from school administrators and the county SRO about a rise in vaping and THC incidents; staff were asked to produce policy language and scenario guidance before the start of school.
The Monroe Public Schools Board of Education spent the first half of its July 27 work session discussing how the district should handle student possession or use of vapes and THC on campus. Superintendent Shaw opened the agenda item by asking school and law‑enforcement partners to summarize how incidents are currently handled and where the handbook and policy leave blanks to be filled.
"Our concern is if we're addressing this properly, and how we can reduce the amount of activity with the drugs," Shaw said, outlining why staff added a policy review to the agenda. David, a district administrator who reviewed the code of conduct with building principals, told the board that under current language class‑1 and class‑2 substance offenses frequently trigger suspensions and potentially Board disciplinary hearings.
Lieutenant Brian Siroka, introduced by Shaw as the county SRO lead, described how responses typically escalate: first offenses are often treated as civil infractions with education or community service options, while "once you get to the 3rd offense, it becomes a misdemeanor," he said, noting prosecutor involvement at that stage.
Board members debated whether the district should adopt a strict 0‑tolerance posture that routes all incidents to law enforcement or continue to preserve discretion for in‑house responses tied to education and intervention. Several members urged a clear, elevated board policy linked to student‑handbook language so administrators and SROs have consistent expectations.
"We are an absolute hundred percent 0 tolerance school," one board member said during the discussion, pressing staff to remove ambiguity from the current handbook. Staff and board leaders agreed the next step is for legal and operations staff to draft policy language and a set of scenario‑based guidelines for how the policy would be implemented, including exceptions and investigative steps.
The board asked staff to bring the draft policy and supporting scenarios to upcoming work sessions on August 10 and August 24 for committee review and to clarify whether any proposed testing or mandatory measures require additional legal review. The draft direction was made during the meeting, but the board did not adopt formal policy language at the session.
