Board approves MSD Scholar Handbook after debate over corporal punishment, hair and cell-phone language

The Macomb School District Board approved the MSD Scholar Handbook for 2025–26 on second viewing after debate about discipline and policy language, including whether corporal punishment language remained removed districtwide but was reinstated at Denman Junior High School.

Board member Lynn Martin said she needed “clarification on where we are, what we’re doing,” during discussion about several policy items and whether a change intended districtwide had been limited to a single school. Board members questioned why language about corporal punishment appeared inconsistent across the district and sought assurance that districtwide rules — on dress code, hair standards and disciplinary options such as before/after-school detention — would be applied uniformly rather than set at the school level.

Several members noted that hair guidelines had been updated to better reflect district culture and grooming standards. On cell phones, the board discussed recent updates to the handbook to prohibit phone use during instructional time for K–8 and described possible school-level zones or limited use for class assignments; an administrator confirmed the handbook text had been updated to reflect the change. Board members asked whether the district had communicated the cell‑phone policy change to families; staff said the handbook was updated and that some communications (for example about uniforms) had appeared on district social channels, while other notices might still be needed.

There was particular confusion during discussion over whether corporal punishment language had been reintroduced at Denman Junior High; board members requested a clear, consolidated policy to ensure consistent application across buildings. The transcript records a motion and second for approval of the handbook and a recorded vote: “All in favor? Aye.” A board member later stated, “The motion carried.”

Separately, the board discussed creating a committee and circulating a draft policy for a student board member representative; an attorney and board members said they had circulated a draft and expected to present a final copy at the June meeting. Board members asked that any school-level provisions be removed from the handbook draft and instead be handled in the single district handbook to avoid inconsistency across buildings.

Members directed staff to provide the updated policy text where agreed, to confirm communications to families about changes (especially cell-phone and uniform rules), and to return a final student‑representative policy for board consideration.