[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6177205,"mediaKeyId","5340194-d3885ef6417e44eff3a41534d7d0959a","parentId",5340194,"title","Staff outline state omnibus education bill: records transfer, safety measures, attendance, and technology compliance","audioSeconds",1250,"startMs",1742000,"endMs",2992000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5340194-d3885ef6417e44eff3a41534d7d0959a&start=1742&end=2992","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5340194-d3885ef6417e44eff3a41534d7d0959a/thumbnail_1742000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6177205/Georgia/Staff-outline-state-omnibus-education-bill-records-transfer-safety-measures-attendance-and-technology-compliance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177205-9e2be80ac7b0607bd3b24ba97fa30f13/orig.mp4?Expires=1771114155&Signature=LldF-evTeJKPGWkgcGtGANoBIT-ZY95V~~lueIEbRu7FOlaqJkrnT16LKQTz6hHMYjbNvDk6gAQUBkDrMFKdiXimAKyHcM6t9~jkGypmzXJUT15J3rn9GUOfWUxo6A27LSlm-3A9yGmiWikH-br0hG25XEcOPNfYkZwc0PuWRnynkl5fRq6R3m46Hf0o0i3~pwL6NAXreTijdpkJA8fvy6Lqwql4ju~yJ5HYJHU-~lw60lqnAd5l5bwwajYsE5cbEEfKyrT7fUWdeDTBU1BhQbUw42W7GSk5HmGTRv3fZIaSK4T-4iSKDit0snp-F47Oy4L8udMb-17SbZUEyCFo5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-09T13:30:13Z","article","At an informal July 9, 2025 meeting presentation, legal counsel Mister Dennison outlined a broad set of new state statutory requirements included in the omnibus education bill (discussed in the meeting as Senate Bill 268) and explained which items will require operational work by district teams.

Dennison said the bill is wide‑ranging and is largely driven by safety concerns. Key operational provisions he identified include a new definition of \"critical records\" and accelerated records transfer timelines: recipients must receive a student's critical records covering the prior 24 months, and sending schools are expected to provide those critical records within five days or face an administrative dispute process. \"We have to give the critical records for the past 24 months to other schools quickly so they can make those decisions on enrollment,\" Dennison said.

Why it matters: The new transfer rules interact with revised provisional‑enrollment rules. Dennison described a provisional enrollment pathway intended to allow immediate but conditional enrollment when records are missing while preserving options such as remote learning during the provisional window; he said students coming from juvenile or Department of Human Services placements must be enrolled immediately.

Safety and law enforcement coordination: The legislation expands obligations for campus police and requires memoranda of understanding with local police agencies across Chatham County. Dennison noted GCIC fingerprinting rules raised practical questions: \"GCIC...wants everyone to be fingerprinted if they're using another department's information...which would mean we would have to...do the same background fingerprint check 8 times,\" a complication staff will need to resolve through MOUs and interagency coordination. The law also requires behavioral threat assessments and mandates a state committee to clarify what counts as an educational record for these purposes; Dennison said the committee’s guidance is expected early next year and that MOUs may need to be amended afterward.

Student supports and reporting: The bill embeds PBIS (positive behavior supports) and RTI (response to intervention) requirements for schools with low climate ratings, expands suicide‑awareness training, and requires anonymous reporting mechanisms and youth violence prevention clubs at each school. Dennison said these items will increase staff training and workload but not necessarily immediate policy changes at the board level.

Technology, social media and cyberbullying: The law requires an updated acceptable‑use approach and a cyberbullying protocol that districts must file with the state. Dennison described a timeline: a district draft due in October, a submission to the state by Oct. 15, state guidance by Dec. 1, a model policy by Jan. 1, 2026, and compliance standards to follow in April. He also summarized the new Distraction Free Education Act requirement that districts adopt a policy by Jan. 1 and may phase in device restrictions by July 1; the policy must address accommodations under Section 504 and discipline processes.

Budget and implementation: Dennison and board members repeatedly described many of the new requirements as operationally heavy and largely unfunded mandates. Board member Miss Hall urged the board’s state association to press for statewide templates: \"let's ask our organization... GSBA... Pressure the state to come up with things,\" she said. Board member Mister Kaczmar asked whether the district can reasonably wait for state or federal guidance before acting on items that require new procedures.

Next steps: Dennison said teams in student information systems, counseling, facility operations, campus police, and HR are already assessing the operational tasks and will return with recommended policy changes where necessary. He advised the board that some MOUs and practices will be drafted to meet statutory deadlines and then revised after state guidance is published.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Informal Session - July 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At an informal July 9, 2025 meeting presentation, legal counsel Mister Dennison outlined a broad set of new state statutory requirements included in the omnibus education bill (discussed in the meeting as Senate Bill 268) and explained which items will require operational work by district teams.","taxTitle","Savannah-Chatham County, School Districts, Georgia","taxId",15361,"location","Georgia","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6177212,"Legal update: recent Supreme Court and appellate rulings alter legal risks and obligations for school districts",1471,260000,1731000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5340194-d3885ef6417e44eff3a41534d7d0959a&start=260&end=1731","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5340194-d3885ef6417e44eff3a41534d7d0959a/thumbnail_260000.jpg","/articles/6177212/Georgia/Legal-update-recent-Supreme-Court-and-appellate-rulings-alter-legal-risks-and-obligations-for-school-districts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177212-dc2c5e6bcbe3c9d8f6ceb49fa63865ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1771114155&Signature=AYnXONDJd6DFvNoGp5P~IbdIZj-QvUAICNWwXXMXp5bsQHnotbHUl9NAqsNTwQ1eWbI46wMp~4AQrshUR89yIES1ZJ3~iae8DvXgFAZ3NrguIdVBrKJvuNEQMQYiTVQUyQ0mDpqu653LqwB0RVUplqHOxS3A0whytCvf1dYJwmxrLIiblBmpa6j8fx9CeemrAxp09HJLGzam63-U2CZUSn3Ty733IcRsjW33Szaj5jUbh81ao6XPbFrDc60i1uG1rHJQG62BSI8L03mcnpQusDw6FG10xW8hGyaNuzqgWrdaI-7KQ0dEZQH7EtxXgkn2wTkiuFG7gJr0gREhzSGLzA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legal counsel Mister Dennison briefed the Savannah‑Chatham County Board of Education on a range of recent U.S. Supreme Court and appellate decisions that he said carry practical consequences for district policy and exposure.

Dennison said the most immediately consequential ruling for school districts is Mahmood v. Taylor, a parental‑rights decision out of Montgomery County, Maryland, in which \"the majority of the court sided with the parents on this case,\" he said, describing the decision as requiring districts to take greater steps to accommodate religious objections tied to curricular materials. He warned the district should expect more parental challenges tied to curriculum and opt‑out procedures.

Why it matters: Dennison told the board the ruling tightens the scrutiny on district choices about curriculum and opt‑outs and interacts with Georgia’s own Parents’ Bill of Rights and state book‑challenge processes. That combination, he said, means districts should expect more federal constitutional arguments paired with state statutory mechanisms.

Counsel also summarized rulings affecting government liability and civil‑rights claims. He described an Osseo area schools decision that moved courts toward a \"deliberate indifference\" standard for disability‑related claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504. \"It's just not gonna be a special standard for schools,\" Dennison said, explaining lower standards that once required showing gross misjudgment or bad faith have narrowed and that districts must ensure accommodations are timely and documented.

Dennison reviewed additional decisions and trends: a reaffirmation that E‑rate funding is constitutional after the FCC Consumers Research litigation (preserving a major source of federal school technology funding), the Ames/Title VII sequencing decisions tied to anti‑discrimination standards (and their relationship to Bostock), and Williams v. Reed on administrative exhaustion when remedies are impossible to access. He also noted a Georgia Court of Appeals opinion in Wilson v. Anderson that found factual disputes sufficient to potentially overcome official‑immunity defenses in a bullying‑related stabbing, a decision Dennison described as raising stakes for compliance with safety and investigative obligations.

Context and cautions: Dennison emphasized the court landscape is not uniform — some rulings expand parental or religious claims while others preserve agency and funding authority — and advised the district to monitor litigation closely. He also flagged several cases that either produced unanimous holdings on narrow points (e.g., the Osseo decision) or were sent back after a 4–4 split (an Oklahoma charter‑school case), leaving some questions unresolved.

Next steps: Dennison said district lawyers will continue to track certiorari-stage cases and state high‑court developments and will identify policy adjustments or operational steps the district should take to reduce legal exposure or to implement newly clarified rights or duties.","At a July 9, 2025 informal meeting, district legal counsel reviewed recent U.S. Supreme Court and appellate rulings affecting parental rights, disability liability, religious‑activity limits, and federal funding that school districts must track and respond to.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6177198,"Board moves to executive session to discuss real estate, personnel and safety",31,5272000,5303000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5340194-d3885ef6417e44eff3a41534d7d0959a&start=5272&end=5303","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5340194-d3885ef6417e44eff3a41534d7d0959a/thumbnail_5272000.jpg","/articles/6177198/Georgia/Board-moves-to-executive-session-to-discuss-real-estate-personnel-and-safety","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177198-f6c87e996e49524bf701a4c3b8cbf719/orig.mp4?Expires=1771114156&Signature=kQNxs4Xrj1f-MdBjw9EXeCZ20bx0-3eW5tSqcJbjo3mpVeOCqZEMxMNtepWSTV-3mB-Mk-BtJ398YZ4907DzWk9fgc~n5if3XRx7ZRAvLC0UEJXPfkxEBvsA6Da4HdJGZm~wSyYndWFhBPrdUcYNxVpzlDubve1y3p7ZuXIuC2twzJvxp9VEmHA38VC80YaXxwsZ6XexsrJI-7xFceq4st6utTZTMcvM~zC3S8hHUcHvRqiCd8gPbb9wzI5J2wJpcFR51FH6KK1sNOdZrSp0L-CJZBlgOr-dQjvX6KECEjHFm42XWah9T90GwQ0x17K8J04U5TIfuWDTIzHbylW2pw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the end of the July 9, 2025 informal meeting, the Savannah‑Chatham County Board of Education moved into an executive session to discuss real estate, personnel and safety.

The chair asked for a motion to go into executive session “to discuss real estate, personnel, safety.” The chair recorded that the motion was moved and seconded and called for a voice vote. The transcript records affirmative responses of \"Aye. Aye.\" No roll‑call names were recorded in the transcript excerpt. The public portion of the meeting recessed after the motion passed.

Notes: The transcript does not record the names of the motion’s mover and seconder, nor a roll‑call tally; the motion language and outcome are recorded in the meeting transcript as presented above.","At the close of the informal meeting on July 9, 2025 the board approved a motion to enter executive session to discuss real estate, personnel and safety matters.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":46,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6177202,"New charter rules raise stakes for local denials; board discussion focuses on alignment and documentation",366,3358000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5340194-d3885ef6417e44eff3a41534d7d0959a&start=2992&end=3358","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5340194-d3885ef6417e44eff3a41534d7d0959a/thumbnail_2992000.jpg","/articles/6177202/Georgia/New-charter-rules-raise-stakes-for-local-denials-board-discussion-focuses-on-alignment-and-documentation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177202-b27a7f4114e1513687f06a29a6327762/orig.mp4?Expires=1771114156&Signature=b4net2ZgFW0fbEFEb10H3dtb~tyw4BfyfRLlseCVUYXZu2-xZeOyBD8BcDMEjCxhYVHHRcvyY2KZfcaOd2QkrWrYS3QxujrI0G-pGyjhOXs3Xw0H-54K8uRgHEUltVG1WD7b7O19GyWv-Xj8ndOCrKzoKiWPhfmznhh~Cgw3ZFCA5CmmL5dSkUS6fX0O1K5kZ~BuCLtc1-ES~AVjqu0RsXggMhskQhMHF8E5BBpbGoypykK4yeEEMpCAiPv7sHZNd0U8VttXswMcboQrpvUslpeSFHRns6Yt5nTCDmepeHu6xsidgrbbin9BRzbUEuw6fNQ-~yOadhximYxCzU9txw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legal counsel and board members discussed state changes to charter‑authorization rules and potential consequences for local denials at the July 9, 2025 informal meeting.

Dennison summarized the core change: during a school district's term of a waivers program (referred to in the meeting as a \"Swiss waiver\"), if the district denies two charter applications that the state later approves, the district may be presumed to be a non‑pro charter authorizer and could face suspension or loss of waiver status during a future waiver cycle. He said that suspension could last up to three years and that districts would have to demonstrate they meet state expectations to restore waiver benefits.

Why it matters: Dennison and board members said the shift moves emphasis from front‑end denial to back‑end performance: the state appears to be favoring initial access and then using performance metrics and accountability to determine a charter’s continued existence. The presenter noted that charter approvals also now bring state startup funding (Dennison cited a $250,000 allocation for the first three years for newly approved charters).

Board discussion and practical implications: Board member Mister Kaczmar argued for making local denials defensible with objective, state‑aligned criteria: \"I'll take fake local control and unfunded mandates for a thousand dollars,\" he said in a broader comment about state direction, and he recommended strengthening the district’s evaluative instrument so denials are founded on objective grounds such as financial and facility plans rather than subjective preferences. Board members also discussed the 20‑day obligation to provide the basis for a denial and the heavy lift of producing school‑by‑school reports to show capacity and alternative school options within the district when a denial is appealed to the state.

Contract and legal exposure: Dennison said the state’s posture leaves little flexibility to adopt contract terms that differ materially from state expectations and that the district’s ability to negotiate charter contracts may be constrained in practice. Several board members urged aligning local evaluation and contract language with state standards to avoid having a denial overturned on procedural grounds.

Next steps: The district will continue to align its charter evaluation tools and consider contract language changes, recognizing the time and staff resources required to produce defensible denial documentation and to respond to state appeals.","Legal counsel described state law changes that create consequences if a local district denies two charter applications that are later approved by the state. Board members discussed aligning local evaluation tools to state criteria, strengthening charter contracts, and the heavy administrative burden of documenting denials.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Staff outline state omnibus education bill: records transfer, safety measures, attendance, and technology compliance

Legal update: recent Supreme Court and appellate rulings alter legal risks and obligations for school districts

Board moves to executive session to discuss real estate, personnel and safety

New charter rules raise stakes for local denials; board discussion focuses on alignment and documentation