Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Code Of Conduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community members urge clarity on proposed student code changes, including mobile device rules and sunscreen exception
Summary
During public comment, residents asked the Henrico board to clarify proposed student code of conduct changes—particularly a stricter cell phone policy—and to add explicit language allowing unscented sunscreen; they also raised inconsistencies in disciplinary levels for tobacco and nonprescription medication.
Several residents used the May 8 public forum to ask the Henrico School Board to clarify and adjust proposed student code of conduct changes before the board votes, focusing on a proposed cell phone policy, sunscreen access, and uneven disciplinary designations.
Marlene Sherlock, a Fairfield District resident, asked the board to clarify several omissions and inconsistencies she found while reading the proposed code. “Please consider adding [unscented sunscreen] as an explicit exception in your definition of medication,” Sherlock said, citing Virginia state code Section 22.1‑274.5, which she said allows students to possess and use unscented sunscreen without a note or prescription.
Sherlock also questioned enforcement logistics for a stricter cellphone policy the board is considering for next school year, asking whether division‑provided secure storage would be required and how exceptions for health accommodations would be handled without violating privacy. She urged administrators to prepare staff and families for a potentially “hectic first week enforcing it.”
Disciplinary consistency: Sherlock pointed to inconsistency between the penalties for possessing a cough drop under the nonprescription medication policy and penalties for possession of tobacco or alternative nicotine products. She noted that the proposed code uses a higher initial consequence level for nonprescription medication violations than for tobacco possession and questioned whether that aligns with state law prohibiting minors from possessing tobacco.
Board process and next steps: The public comment period is for speakers to address the board; board members did not respond to comments during the forum. Sherlock left written remarks for the board and encouraged the administration to ensure schools, families and staff understand changes well ahead of any enforcement date. The board did not vote on the code changes at the May 8 meeting; the code of conduct approval was listed among upcoming agenda items and will require board action at a later meeting.
Ending: The resident called for clearer language in the code and thorough advance communication to schools and families if the board adopts a stricter cellphone policy.
