Members of the public used the board’s open forum on Oct. 13 to press the Blue Valley Board of Education to change Policy 3522, Emergency Safety Interventions, arguing the policy’s current wording discourages compassionate, preventive interventions for students in emotional crisis.

Several speakers described situations where children in distress were calmed by staff and said the district’s policy could punish those same actions. The comments focused on how the policy defines restraint and when staff may use physical force.

Parent Jenny Stille said she is “outraged” by the application of Policy 3522 and that her daughter’s past traumatic episodes were handled by teachers who “put humanity and her needs first.” Stille said the policy as applied risks penalizing the compassionate responses that helped her child.

Parent Casey Edelen, who identified himself as a parent of two Blue Valley students, cited the policy’s definition of restraint — “any physical force used to restrict a student's movement” and permitted only when a student presents an immediate danger and less-restrictive alternatives have failed — and asked whether calmly transporting or carrying a very young, voluntarily cooperating child for comfort and de-escalation should be classified as a restraint. “When done voluntarily, safely, and without resistance, this should not be classified as restraint,” Edelen said.

Kathy Wiley, a speaker who described more than 30 years in education including time in Blue Valley, urged the board to consider intent and context when disciplining staff. Wiley asked for “a continuum of options” rather than a single punitive outcome for actions taken in the moment to protect a child’s dignity.

Parent Carrie Fernando said she moved to Overland Park because she believed Blue Valley was “the gold standard.” She described the harm she sees when students in distress are isolated and staff pull away, and asked the district to “trust our teachers” and provide training and support rather than rules that limit humane responses.

Speakers raised two recurring policy questions: whether transporting a nonresisting, distressed child should count as an emergency safety intervention under the policy, and how the policy allows for professional judgment by trained staff versus staff with less training. Several commenters asked the board to clarify which staff roles carry decision-making authority in real time.

Board members acknowledged the speakers. Board Member Clay said he agreed with much of what had been said and thanked participants for speaking. Superintendent Mark Chapman (at the meeting) and other administrators received the comments and were asked to follow up. No formal action or amendment to Policy 3522 occurred at the meeting; public comment was recorded for staff and board consideration.

Background: Policy 3522 was discussed entirely during the open forum portion of the Oct. 13 meeting rather than an agenda item, and multiple parents and educators used their three-minute allotments to speak. The board did not vote on Policy 3522 that evening and indicated staff would review and follow up.

Less-critical details: Speakers referenced the district’s broader stated value of “putting students at the center” and asked the board to align policy with that value. Several speakers also noted the district has social workers in buildings and urged that policy changes be consistent with trauma-informed practices.