Belen child ban delayed for more input

October 30, 2009

The Belen Consolidated Schools Board of Education has delayed the final consideration of a new policy that would ban employees’ children from coming to work with their parents, saying board members want to hear more from employees who have children.

Board President Jamie Goldberg expressed a deep disagreement with the policy, saying he doesn’t support it in its current form, which disallows any employee’s child from coming to work, except in rare or emergency circumstances.

“I stand firm,” he said. “I think the kids should be with their parents.”

The board began debating the policy almost three weeks ago.

Superintendent Patricia Rael, who made the policy available to all district employees, has sought input from teachers and staff but only received 17 comments on the proposed policy from a district of more than 700 employees. The superintendent asked that the comments be sent directly to her office, however.

The policy, which hasn’t yet been adopted but only debated, wouldn’t just ban employees’ children from school.

“There’s a notation there that further defined ‘children of employees.’ It refers to an employee’s own children, grandchildren, relatives and/or friends for whom the employee is charged with their care,” Rael said.

The policy disallows unsupervised children at work. It would keep employees’ children from using school equipment, from riding in a school bus driven by their parent, unless it’s the child’s legitimate route, to playing on teachers’ desktop computers.

The debate over the policy has become contentious at moments, as the two board members who want it passed — Dolores Quintana and Adrian Pino — tried to protect its language and effectiveness from three board members who are skeptical of it — Goldberg, Sammy Chavez and Julian Luna.

“I understand where the policy is coming from, the policy need, because we need to make sure that there’s something there because there have been issues with children. But we need a much simpler policy,” Goldberg said, calling for a brief, alternative policy.

“It’s between the employee and the supervisor. I think it ought to remain that way,” Chavez said of dealing with problem children. “I don’t think we need a board policy. It ought to remain within the confines of the supervisor and the employee to deal with it on a case-by-case basis.”

“I totally agree with Mr. Chavez and Mr. Goldberg. If we’re going to make a board policy, it needs to be something simple,” Luna said, adding, “I trust our employees and I trust our principals. We have a lot of professionals working for us.”

After listening to the three board members, including Goldberg asking that key paragraphs be stripped from the policy, the usually quiet Quintana erupted into a lecture on the purpose of the policy.

“I never talk publicly but sometimes it gets my goat,” she said. “It upsets me that we can have certain things that the administrators, the supervisors, can do to enforce the control of their site that can be comfortable for everybody. But to allow other things to happen — disorder, disruption — that’s a different story.”

Pino said he and Quintana worked hard to develop the policy.

The board was required to read the policy publicly at two board meetings, a part of the approval process, before voting.

Board members were expected to take up the policy for a vote at its next meeting, but Goldberg asked for a delay of any vote, saying the board needed at least a full month to hear input from employees with children.

Posted in: Schools