Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline Policy Zero Tolerance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing on ‘zero tolerance’ school-crime policy draws clarifying questions from teacher
Summary
During a public hearing the board reviewed proposed amendments to the district’s school policies, and a teacher asked whether the ‘zero tolerance’ language covers assaults on staff; district staff clarified scope includes assault and battery on teachers and listed statutory offenses.
Get email alerts on the Discipline Policy Zero Tolerance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Columbia County School Board opened a public hearing April 8 to review several board policies, including a proposed amendment to the district’s “zero tolerance” policy for school-related crimes.
Mickey Garrett, a Pathways Academy teacher speaking as an individual, asked the board to clarify what the zero-tolerance policy would cover and whether it applied to felony crimes and assault and battery. A district staff member responding during the hearing said the policy lists several statutorily defined offenses and that the amendments were intended to make enforcement “a little tighter.” The staff member explicitly said the amendments include “assault and battery on teachers and school officials,” and added the policy would extend to some personal effects taken from staff if items were knocked from a teacher’s hand.
Garrett asked whether the assault-and-battery language referred to students toward employees or students toward students; the staff member clarified that the assault-and-battery reference is to students toward teachers. The staff member also noted that other zero-tolerance offenses include drug and firearms offenses.
Why it matters: Changes to the district’s zero-tolerance policy affect disciplinary outcomes for student misconduct and staff safety protections. The board held the hearing to allow public input before any formal change.
Outcome and next steps: The public hearing was concluded and the board proceeded to its regular meeting. No vote on revisions was recorded during the public hearing portion in the transcript; the record shows the hearing closed and the regular meeting began.

