Safety and Security & Code of Conduct 

          The February 5^th study session covered two important topics, Safety and Security at the high school and the Code of Conduct.

          The first portion of the meeting on Safety and Security at MHS was a follow up from the previous year’s work on this topic.  The current year budget funds several short-term measures recommended by the district-wide committee on safety and security last year, including greeters at the elementary schools, labeling windows to facilitate emergency access, additional fencing for two of our elementary schools and an ID system, all of which have either been implemented or are underway.  At budget time last year, the Board asked that more work be done to study the safety and security needs of the high school, including its culture, before committing additional funds to that building since the issues there are more complex.

MHS principal, Dr. Mark Orfinger, explained that several groups at the high school have been working on two building goals:  1) establishing a culture of student accountability, and 2) developing and strengthening programs for our at-risk students.  The safety and security work is linked to these goals as well.

Dr. Orfinger reported that considerable time has been spent identifying our at-risk students and developing plans to address their need for more academic support and more personalization.  At-risk students include students who are failing one or more courses and need academic instructional services, students with significant learning needs, and students with disciplinary infractions. 

Assistant Principals Steve Frasene and Mario Washington headed up the Safety and Security committee for the high school, comprised of twelve members including the Asst Supt for Business Operations Meryl Rubinstein, the school nurse, the school youth officer, a school board liaison and teacher, student and parent representatives.  The starting point for the committee’s work was last year’s safety and security study completed by the District’s consultants, BCL Solutions.

Steve Frasene noted that there are over 476,000 square feet of space to supervise at the high school, and that the building is heavily used not only during the school day, but in the late afternoons, evenings and week-ends as well.  The current number of campus supervisors and greeters are inadequate, resulting in many areas of the building with minimal or no coverage for portions of the day.  Recently, there has been an increase in graffiti and costly vandalism, in addition to the on-going concerns around C-Wall activities and false alarms.  Many of the problems have occurred in the late afternoons and evenings, when supervision is minimal.

To address these security issues, the Safety and Security Committee is proposing several measures, including:
                1)  the creation of a Learning Center to provide support and structure for students with disciplinary infractions;
                2)  purchasing an expandable surveillance system to address security concerns in parking lots, hallways, C-wall and remote areas of the campus;                 3) hiring additional security personnel and a greeter; 

For illustration purposes, Mr. Frasene shared a surveillance system proposal from one security company that would involve installing up to 60 cameras over three phases at a cost of just under $100,000 for the initial 30, and $186,000 for all 60.   Cameras could be particularly useful in the more remote locations, and could be placed inside or out.  They would not necessarily require real-time monitoring, but could capture and store images for later review.  There was much discussion about the cameras, including the number of units and costs, and the impact on the culture of the school.  Board members asked whether it would be possible to start with a small number, and evaluate their usefulness before expanding the system.  It was also suggested that if some cameras were installed, perhaps there would not be as much need for additional security staff.  There was also discussion around the effectiveness of the current greeter system.  Dr. Fried will take the committee’s recommendations and Board feedback into consideration as the budget is developed. 

The second portion of the study session addressed the athletic code of conduct that is required of high school athletes.  While there is a code of conduct that governs the behavior of ALL students while on school property or at school events, the athletic department requires athletes to sign a more stringent code that provides for penalties for student misconduct at any time, for example at week-end parties, and not just at school or at school events.

The discussion centered around the following questions:

Is it fair to hold athletes to stricter standards than we hold students who participate in other extracurricular activities to?  Should the athletic code of conduct be applied to participants in ANY extracurricular activity . . .including  music programs, PACE, student government, and other clubs?

A lengthy discussion ensued, that considered a number of issues, including:  1) the value of extracurricular activities and the potential negative impact of putting up barriers to involvement;  2)  the inequity of holding one group of students – in this case athletes – to a higher standard of behavior than other students; 3)  the practicability of enforcing a code that applies to students’ conduct outside of school activities;  4) whether school organizations should have the ability to impose stricter standards for their members should they choose to do so; and 5)  whether or not schools have the legal right to oversee student conduct outside of school activities.  Board members also compared codes of conduct from neighboring districts.  The board agreed to get input from the district’s legal counsel on whether or not districts are permitted to apply penalties for student misconduct outside school or school-related activities, and will continue this important discussion once counsel’s input has been received.