Student search proposal denied in Lehighton
An attempt to change school policy related to student searches fell short Monday night in Lehighton Area School District.
David Bradley made a motion, which ultimately failed 5-4, for the first reading of a policy change that would require searches of a student only be done by a member of the same sex and only after notification of a parent.
Bradley, Joy Beers, Gail Maholick and Richard Beltz voted for the change, while Larry Stern, Rita Spinelli, Stephen Holland, Wayne Wentz and Andrew Yenser dissented.
“If my son or daughter comes to school with something on their person and gets called to the office, they can’t protect my child from harm or from harming someone else until they get ahold of myself or my wife?” Yenser asked. “I don’t know anyone who would want to put their child or any other child in the school in that situation. You’re losing sight of the safety of the children of this district to move your own agenda forward.”
According to Bradley, his agenda is for students to have “the same rights they have on the street, in the library or at the park.”
Bradley referred to a discussion from the June board meeting, when Fred Kemmerer Jr. alleged his son was “strip-searched” at the high school.
“As a parent, you feel helpless,” Kemmerer said at the time.
“I did a lot of studying and found this is actually something that is allowed to happen. Our kids could go to school and, at any moment, be strip-searched based on allegations.”
Kemmerer defined a strip search as having any article of clothing removed during the search.
“This district is supposed to act in place of the parent,” Bradley said Monday night. “If I’m not mistaken, every parent would want to know what is going on with their child before someone decides to remove an article of clothing. What you have now is one student can make a complaint of another student, and that student is now in the office with his clothes being taken off.”
Yenser said the situation Bradley described has not occurred in the district.
“That is your opinion,” he told Bradley.
Earlier in the meeting, a proposed policy change to read, “no student or member of the public will be searched without first meeting the legal limits of probable cause, and being given a Miranda warning,” also failed 5-4.
“With our current procedure, we are able to work with local law enforcement and our school police officers to assist them and bring individuals to justice,” Cleaver said. “Changing that could put this district, staff and entire educational community at risk.”
According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania Students’ Rights handbook, authorities can search a locker and desk without reasonable suspicion if they tell the person ahead of time and allow them to be there during the search.
They can search a locker without telling the person ahead of time only if there is a reasonable suspicion that the locker holds material that threatens the health, welfare and safety of students in the school.
A search of a student’s person can be conducted if the school reasonably suspects that a student is hiding items that pose a threat to other students under their clothes on their bodies, and there is no less intrusive way to search.
Comments
Can School Officials Ever Conduct Strip Searches of Students?
Almost Never. Strip searches are conducted by removing part or all of a student's clothing to inspect private areas and undergarments. Strip searches are so intrusive they almost always violate students' privacy rights. The only exception is if the school reasonably suspects that a student is hiding items that pose a threat to other students, such as dangerous drugs, under their clothes on their bodies, and there is no less intrusive way to search.
I would like to know the the law and legal rights are, not some left leaning organization.
Good evening. Both of these votes were a slap in the face of parents wanting to protect the rights of their children while attending a government school. The article misses the the idea that by having a parent, counsel, or a police person present we protect a child from false allegations, and false prosecution. Children have higher propensity to making false allegations. When in trouble they are interrogated without the benefit of adult supervision. So lying about the innocence can earn them favor or special treatment.
Public Schools are under the control of the stakeholders. These motions bring the conversation directly to those stakeholders. Why? Because the 'powers that were' have tried blocking these discussions at committee meetings, board meetings, and PTO meetings. I tried it nicely, was obstructed, and now I use what we call transparency mode. They are not happy.
Let me explain:
Last year we had an event where a male assistant vice principal, frisked and searched students. At least one was required to remove articles of clothes while the female principal observed, as per school protocol. In that dragnet over ten students were reeled in, they were all subjected to a current process that is not in the individuals students' best interest. We just want the stakeholders to decide if the students, attending their schools should have the same rights they have at the public library, public pool or public park. We currently allow for an authoritarian zone, one which our students lose many, if not all their rights when they enter.
Under School Code, I learned that any one board member, true to his oath, has the authority to bring any motion to the table. They hate it. A second to the motion opens the discussion to all stakeholders. The old guard can not block it. It is a legal veto of the old board that has the power over the agenda. The top down regime has toppled. The stakeholders voted me in, and we have in turn, empowered the stakeholders. Fixed, from the inside. The stakeholders now have the control. But be ready for a fight, be vigilant. Arrogance and power is a difficult foe to topple, but I have faith.
Here is what we are fixing from the inside. These student interrogations leverage students into becoming informants. We learned the frisking of students and having them remove clothing as part of a search are a means of intimidation and control. They can involve legitimate concerns, or more likely, one student that is mad at another, tattle tales on another to get even. Stories of contraband, etc. A slipperry slope. The idea of "immediately harmful to other students" is wide open for interpretation, and opens Pandora's box. When people hear this they think, weapon, drugs, etc. But, for our government schools they have an inside term, 'Death by Strawberry'. A common ruse is the strawberry defense. "A strawberry can be a lethal weapon if used against someone with a known food allergy", therefore "all items warrents the same escalation of search as a knife, gun or bomb". The intent of the stakeholders can only be followed if the stakeholder tell them what they want. Otherwise, they are free to play strawberry cop, frisking and strip searching who ever they see fit, with a lowest standard of suspicion. If we don't want stop and frisk Strawberry style in our schools, we need the stakeholders to decide the level of authority and methods of engagement they want to give the staff, teachers and administrators.
The issues are Student rights, and Stakeholder control. Both scare the old guard into turtle mode, hiding from the responsibility of their elected office. We envoke transparency mode, listening to the people. Writing policy the stakehokders want for the student attending their schools.
Rigid principles, they are hard to oppose.
Thanks for the support and opposition. The former leads to progress, the latter exposes the need for the former.
Sincerely,
Citizen David F. Bradley Sr.