By NEIL ZOLOT
WAKEFIELD — The School Committee is considering how to implement new policies for a code of conduct for staff and activities for students not going on field trips.
Both were topics of inconclusive discussions at their meeting Tuesday, December 10.
There is no policy for a Staff Code of Conduct, other than to say one will be written. “Our staff conduct policy is that we’ll have a staff conduct policy,” Superintendent Doug Lyons explained. “The Code of Conduct makes reference to a handbook we don’t have.”
The teachers’ union requested one as a safeguard against arbitrary disciplinary action and the task of formulating one was handed to the School Committee Policy and communication Subcommittee, comprised of Eileen Colleran, Peter Davis and Melissa Quinn.
Not surprisingly, they looked to the state Association of School Committees (MASC) for guidance and found their model policy, which reads, “All staff members have a responsibility to familiarize themselves with and abide by the laws of the State as these affect their work, the policies of the School Committee, and the procedures designed to implement them.
“In the area of personal conduct, the School Committee expects that teachers and others will conduct themselves in a manner that not only reflects credit to the school system but also sets forth a model worthy of emulation by students.
“All staff members will be expected to carry out their assigned responsibilities with conscientious concern.
“Essential to the success of ongoing school operations and the instructional program are the following specific responsibilities, which will be required of all personnel: faithfulness and promptness in attendance at work; support and enforcement of policies of the School Committee and their implementing regulations and school rules in regard to students; diligence in submitting required reports promptly at the times specified; care and protection of school property and concern for and attention to their own and the school system’s legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of students, including the need to ensure that students are under supervision at all times.”
The MASC model also has links to Massachusetts General Laws dealing with Policies Relative to the Conduct of Teachers (Chapter 37H) and Promotion of Anarchy (Chapter 11), defined as attempts to overthrow the government by violent means.
Davis reported he received negative feedback from teachers on the wording, even though the exact same or similar wording is used in “almost every community. Hundreds of other districts have no problem with the language.”
School Committee member Kevin Fontanella, a teacher in Saugus, said he was uncomfortable with the wording, particularly the high expectations of being “a model worthy of emulation.”
In discussion, member Tom Markham asked, “What are we trying to solve? Why are we adding this? We expect people to obey the laws. If someone breaks the law, it doesn’t have to be a policy of the school system to discipline that person. There are plenty of vehicles we already have. We can address it without a policy.”
Lyons agreed to some extent. “This does not supercede any elements of bargaining agreements, but we’ve been asked for this,” he said. “Some districts want to control every aspect of everything, but what is too much and what is too little? The intent is not to get in the way of bargaining agreements.”
“Are we trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist?” Committee chairman Stephen Ingalls asked.
“The words say we’re trying to solve a problem,” Markham responded.
Although the agenda called for a motion on the matter, Davis suggested “we’ll reset” pending more research and feedback.
—————
The desire for a policy on field trips is to give students not participating to be offered “an alternative which provides a valuable educational opportunity,” as a proposal reads.
As was the case with the staff conduct issue, Davis said he received negative feedback for union representatives, but said the idea was not to demand more work from teachers to figure out what kids not going on field trips should be doing, but was a policy “about what happens to kids who don’t go on field trips to try to provide an experience that’s not sitting around all day. We want to make sure kids not congoing on field trips get educational content, but it doesn’t have to be the same content as the field trip.”
Markham agreed the “need for addressing concerns about field trips is real.”
—————
The School Committee and its Policy and Communications Subcommittee are also trying to address a request from various staff entities to provide a way for them to participate in School Committee meetings, possibly through a regular agenda item for comments and discussion. “How do we get all employees involved, not just a subset?” Davis asked, noting that when employees do come to School Committee meetings it’s usually principals, curriculum coordinators or specific teachers talking about a specific subject. “We don’t want to discriminate against certain groups, but give everybody an equal chance to participate to open up communication. Some feedback may be positive, some not.”
There are questions as to what the parameters of participation would look like. Would it lead to a discussion of items not on an agenda, which could be a violation of open meeting laws? Would staff attendees be able to weigh in on multiple items of discussion as a matter of course, possibly sitting at the School Committee table or would they be called to participate on a case-by-case basis as they are now? If staff members or anyone attending a School Committee meeting School Committee members could ask them to testify about topics being discussed. Would it be like the current Public Comment item in which members of the public can voice their opinions, but the School Committee is prohibited from responding to them under open meeting laws?
“We can adjust it as we see fit,” Davis said. “If it takes too much time, we could look at how we situate it, but that would be a good problem to have.”
Markham said the School Committee shouldn’t create a category that separates staff members for other citizens and gives staff members a status other citizens don’t have. “There need to be guardrails on this so it doesn’t become something other than what it’s intended to be,” he feels. “There are other vehicles for staff to address the School Committee like grievance procedures.”
“My initial reaction is to be protective of this space,” School Committee member Kevin Piskadlo commented. “I’m hesitant in giving up some of our business meetings,” while asking “How do we utilize existing procedures to improve collaboration? Collaboration is critical.”
Davis said some of this would be left to the discretion of the chairman, currently Ingalls.
“It’s something I have to think about,” Ingalls said. “We need a cautious approach. I’m not averse to carving out a piece of Public Comment but open meeting laws limit what we can talk about.”