JAY – School Committee members voted Thursday night to accept the second readings of two separate policies dealing with injurious hazing and student class assignments, provided each policy is revised. The policies apply to grades kindergarten to eight.

In October, School Committee members recommended that an appeal process be added to the proposed policy that would determine a child’s advancement in grade level, while parent Bob Deane requested that parents also have some input in their child’s classroom assignment.

The revised policy now states that if a parent would like to provide input on their child’s placement, they then need to fill out a questionnaire and submit it no later than April 1 for the following school year. The policy also highlights several steps of an appeals process that included the presence of an Appeals Placement Committee.

“It leaves a crack in the door,” Chairman Clint Brooks said.

Board member Gene Uhuad helped prepare the revision along with Mary Redmond Luce. Uhuad said the new policy would “allow a feedback process that goes back to the different levels and allows everyone who’s involved with the children to participate.”

Uhuad read the additional provisions, which included an appeals process and possibility for parent input, but Brooks pointed out that there needed to be more clarification on the possibility of the continuation of an appeal.

“It needs to state the possibility of continuity of policy to the school board,” Brooks said.

Brooks also acknowledged that the specific members of the appeal committee be clarified along with the type of representation the faculty and parents are allowed to have during the process.

Although Brooks considered the vote to accept the second reading a “formality” of a decision, board members voted 4-1 to accept the revised student classroom assignment policy, but also agreed that it needed some work as well.

Board members also accepted the second reading of the injurious hazing policy, but were also in agreement that it needed to be revised as well. According to Redmond Luce, the language in the policy was inconsistent with the original philosophy the policy was based upon.

The board then decided that instead of stating that students and faculty who violate such policy “may” be subject to disciplinary action, it stated that anyone who violates the policy, student and teacher alike, “shall” be subject to disciplinary action. Members then voted unanimously to accept the second reading on condition the suggested changes are made.