APPROVED May 25, 2023 Schools Safety Task Force Meeting Summary

Browse Search

3 Task Force member Cassie Rice commented that it was good to hear that there were already state and county guidelines in place for external threat issues. She added that it was worthwhile to hear about the partnerships already in place, and to understand that there were protective activities and plans — some which could be discussed in public and others that could not be discussed publically for obvious safety purposes. Co-Chair Hamilton moved the discussion forward to Question #2 — Is there more information that we need to gather?Are there clarifications needed? Task Force member Bradford shared that his group did not think so. There was always the opportunity for clarity, but that Task Force members had the necessary information at this point. Task Force member Simmons referenced the comments from the County Attorney regarding the property lines/boundaries for Orange High School and noted that he was kind of flabbergasted to learn that information. Task Force member Andre Stewart commented on the need for dissemination of information and making sure all stakeholders understand the property lines/boundaries. He noted the significant differences between schools and the need for regulatory provisions to be specific enough to understand, but also vague enough to be made applicable to diverse schools. Task Force member Stewart also noted the need for common language. Co-Chair Hamilton commented that she wished the Task Force had more input from students, and referenced the potential benefit having student survey information. She expressed appreciation to Task Force member Evan Sredzienski for his involvement and input. Co-Chair Hamilton referenced his question about the meaning of "disruption", and the discussion related to disruption of school operations versus the disruption of one student or a limited number of students. In follow-up, Task Force member Stewart noted that the implementation of a holding pattern under the standard response protocols may bother or disrupt some students, but not others. He referenced an event in Greenville that did not involve a school, but necessitated implementation of standard response protocols that restricted the movement of students. He also commented that a disruption at Estes Hill Elementary, with its hotel type design, was different from a disruption at Carrboro High with its design. Task Force member Simmons echoed that architecture plays a role. Co-Chair Hamilton observed that a disruption could evoke differing law enforcement involvement depending on the school. Task Force member Schein observed that a disruption can affect students coming, going and traveling between school campuses, sometimes not being allowed to leave a school or enter onto a school property. He also referenced training, and Task Force member Stewart noted that training would need to be school-specific. Co-Chair Hamilton added that training would be under the school districts' purview, and not the County's. Task Force member Bradford commented that the Board of Commissioners should likely not