[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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",[32,76],{"_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":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6146743,"mediaKeyId","5524723-3ead4b71fc9406aaf1b2861a05034d93","parentId",5524723,"title","Policy committee approves revised visitors rule after debate over criminal‑history limits","audioSeconds",4495,"startMs",4240,"endMs",4500030,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5524723-3ead4b71fc9406aaf1b2861a05034d93&start=4&end=4500","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5524723-3ead4b71fc9406aaf1b2861a05034d93/thumbnail_4240.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6146743/Wisconsin/Policy-committee-approves-revised-visitors-rule-after-debate-over-criminalhistory-limits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146743-d2a76468572a45be5c2904249bf25619/orig.mp4?Expires=1770589698&Signature=FwsXZApYtfrdXqo~rqsq9WxhbYSEHq9cod0C-IjoUSREMU7YDbA8WkAIvU8OENTqw1rYVXfL5TvwOiN2WSG213HPU23WhoeoJEMdloUx6z07gwNwIV4azfXuLHgW6gZlhM1Q1qRSZMFZm0LSZ17JamgDY8g0wUP7Ek~U8NkM8uKgqrzzdMGBXrYKSiZ9UBbqnmNh3cMmJdQj-nOI56-Ka59LlfWn7xvKzn73DtubrgHa5itdlu~veTeaUJTq5zA-5ht2RzKstwoc~l0QmrY4SW-bWtvUgKhZURP7XXIdzT3~cIM5APN3Lsem1LyLWy21m1jyER7~xty4DUzcvXbIeA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Beloit School District, WI","date","2025-08-01T14:10:06Z","article","The Board of Education policy committee voted 2‑1 to approve revisions to Policy 8.60 on visitors to school after debate over whether administrators should be authorized to deny or condition access for people with certain criminal histories.

The revisions — described at the committee meeting as largely attorney‑vetted with one paragraph restored from an earlier draft — will proceed with legal review of staff implementation protocols. Committee members directed staff to return the finalized language to the full board after the attorney review.

Why it matters: The changes address who may enter district property, outline superintendent authority to set visitor guidelines and establish a pathway for the district to handle visitors whose presence is judged detrimental to school operations. Board members said the policy affects parental access, volunteer roles, ADA accommodations and day‑to‑day safety procedures at every school building.

Discussion and detail: Dr. Garrison (superintendent) told the committee that the district does not and would not bar elected board members from school access and that existing operational tools — including the Raptor visitor management system, stay‑away letters and coordination with school resource officers — are used to manage safety. He described Raptor features that can send automatic notifications to administrators and create lists such as custodial/noncustodial designations to control access.

Board Member Romero urged restoring language about visitors with criminal histories to the policy so the district would be prepared to act if needed and recommended the newly added language be vetted by legal counsel before being posted. Romero said the provision was intended to preserve administrator discretion to consider the nature and recency of convictions rather than impose blanket exclusions.

Board President Johnson said she was concerned the draft could unintentionally bar people with nonviolent or long‑ago felony convictions and asked whether the policy should target violent or sex‑related offenses rather than all felonies. Board Member Hankins disagreed, saying the district should have broad discretion to deny access for safety reasons.

Mrs. Beavers (board member) raised a legal and equity concern, noting the draft’s proposed “zero tolerance” language and asking whether excluding parents of students with disabilities could be unlawful; she also observed the district lacks a system that gives the district real‑time access to probation/parole status. Dr. Garrison and other staff emphasized that legal review would address ADA and federal preemption questions and that some operational measures already exist (for example, stay‑away letters and SRO coordination) even if the precise processes are not in policy.

Action and next steps: An amendment to the proposed revisions that would have explicitly added the visitors‑with‑criminal‑history paragraph for immediate inclusion failed on the floor. The committee then approved the revised policy (with the attorney‑vetted language) by a 2‑1 vote and directed staff to have the staff implementation protocols and any 0‑tolerance language vetted by the Board’s attorney and brought back as required. The committee also noted that operational details (how Raptor notifications and custodial lists are used) would be handled administratively and reviewed by legal counsel prior to final publication.

Distinguishing discussion versus decision: The committee’s approval applies to the revised policy language that had already been attorney‑vetted; the additional paragraph about visitors with criminal history remains subject to separate legal vetting (discussion). The failed amendment was discussion that did not become policy (no formal adoption). Staff were directed to obtain legal review before the matter returns to the full board (direction). The committee’s 2‑1 vote is the formal committee action (decision).

Ending: Staff will return any legally revised implementation protocols and the committee’s recommended paragraph to the full Board after attorney review; the committee indicated it wants the district to be ready to act if a safety issue arises but emphasized legal and ADA compliance must be confirmed first.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special Policy Committee Meeting - July 31, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Education policy committee voted 2‑1 to approve revisions to Policy 8.60 on visitors to school after debate over whether administrators should be authorized to deny or condition access for people with certain criminal histories.","taxTitle","Beloit School District, School Districts, Wisconsin","taxId",38334,"location","Wisconsin","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6146738,"Committee backs tighter student phone rules; members debate lunch‑time exception and staffing needs",1220,4604870,5825080,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5524723-3ead4b71fc9406aaf1b2861a05034d93&start=4604&end=5825","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5524723-3ead4b71fc9406aaf1b2861a05034d93/thumbnail_4604870.jpg","/articles/6146738/Wisconsin/Committee-backs-tighter-student-phone-rules-members-debate-lunchtime-exception-and-staffing-needs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146738-8ffd174af2b0b8f4685e0e8ba27999c5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770589698&Signature=CnitYA8Bfopzo4gNb8UrzFPBdRDCl3tLxKpuW4B4-DjP8OA8o2YpiWbHQY0CMVIkJbYbargm03CX8hbtk0o59kmvjZkX-YWG~9ArLxmSdfgPHNSZvAOkYQe3uwV7i0wYonE8RVatMA-zUxBIqjoSbOcBAZ7VJ8ij8gu81QOaOr~6x129bYxmfU~Yp0nZDZDBhvoO7szr3Sp37Gg9Wcxs-Zbc8zb0TkCgbHINvlj5jePnhKc1~adjIXrqQJbas5~7c3bsbUJ1pD2acyqi7GbPMpb8FQrTjOCAYfYgdXF-yVzI0Sybhi6vkd8Niqlb1bTZKinjeEaPXcIdE5wNwWt3tQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Education policy committee unanimously recommended a change to the district’s student electronic‑device policy, forwarding the draft to the full Board after members debated whether to allow limited phone use during designated lunch areas and how the rule would be enforced.

Why it matters: The change would restrict phone use during instructional time and could affect classroom behavior, student supervision workload and students who rely on phones for work‑related messages or unique scheduling needs.

Discussion and detail: Board Member Romero proposed a compromise model: phones kept in lockers from the first bell until the lunch bell, allowed in designated lunch areas only during the lunch period, then returned to lockers for the remainder of the day. Romero described a pilot approach to test the policy’s effects and suggested measuring referrals as a metric to decide whether to tighten rules.

Board Member Hankins argued for a stronger, more categorical ban and said research he had read links bans to improved student achievement; he urged a firm rule entry into the upcoming school year. Dr. Garrison (superintendent) said the district supports teaching appropriate technology use and noted that any policy will need implementation support at building level — including training and coordination with school resource officers for safety incidents.

Several members, including Romero and Dr. Garrison, said staffing shortages could make enforcement difficult and suggested central office assist schools with the expected surge in referrals during the initial months. Romero cautioned that enforcement should not unduly reduce staff time for instruction and urged central support if the district implements a stricter standard.

Action and next steps: The committee voted to recommend approval of the revised student use of mobile phones/electronic devices policy to the full Board; the motion carried 3‑0. Members asked staff to monitor implementation and consider a pilot or measurement framework (for example, tracking referrals) to determine whether the policy should be adjusted after the initial rollout.

Distinguishing discussion versus decision: Committee members discussed multiple enforcement options, a pilot approach and exceptions for students who work or have nontraditional schedules (discussion). The motion to recommend the attorney‑vetted policy to the full Board passed unanimously (decision). Staff were asked to provide implementation support and monitoring (direction).

Ending: The committee forwarded the revised policy to the full Board and asked staff to return metrics and recommended supports after the policy’s initial implementation period.","The committee recommended approval of a revised student mobile‑device policy that would require phones to be secured during instructional periods and allow discussion of limited lunchtime use; supporters cited improved student focus and achievement while others warned of enforcement burdens and proposed a pilot option.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Policy committee approves revised visitors rule after debate over criminal‑history limits

Committee backs tighter student phone rules; members debate lunch‑time exception and staffing needs