Fulton board reviews revised code of conduct, highlights DASA training, AI rules and focus on secondary discipline

The Fulton City School District Board of Education heard a detailed overview Wednesday of a revised district code of conduct that updates how the district will handle academic misconduct tied to artificial intelligence, clarifies Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) procedures and signals a push for clearer, more consistent discipline at the secondary level.

Mr. Hendrickson, a district staff member who presented the draft, said the revisions "look at the academic misconduct part and how we use AI in schools as a tool, not as an operation for cheating or short cutting," and that stakeholders including students, staff and parents reviewed the changes.

Board members said the proposed code matters because much of the dispute they hear from families and staff centers on how discipline is applied at the junior high and high school. Several trustees asked for more specific, short‑form materials and clearer training rather than only the formal legal text.

Discussion and key details

Hendrickson told the board the draft keeps the same overall structure but adds specific language in Section 7 on academic misconduct and AI and in Section 5 to align with the Dignity for All Students Act. He said students who reviewed the draft at student advisory meetings appreciated the progressive‑discipline descriptions and asked that restorative practices remain part of the approach.

Board members and school leaders repeatedly drew a distinction between proactive Tier 1 work (teaching expected behavior) and reactive restorative work when incidents occur. One board member summarized that the code "is written in that the PBIS is kind of tier 3 bridal. And the code of conduct really talks about how we start at tier 1 for all kids and then how we work through small groups," language Hendrickson used to explain the district’s tiered approach.

Trustees pushed for an accessible, plain‑language summary of the code to be published for families and students. Hendrickson said the administration will produce a user‑friendly version — including flow charts and graphics created with the district’s communications contact — while keeping the full legal text on file.

Concerns about consistency, especially at the secondary level

Several board members said they continue to hear from staff, students and families that disciplinary outcomes vary by classroom and building. They asked administrators for concrete examples and metrics to show whether referrals and incidents are falling or whether "referral fatigue" (staff stopping referrals because they perceive no follow‑up) is occurring.

One trustee asked whether improvements were measured year‑to‑year or across a longer period; Hendrickson answered that the district uses both qualitative feedback and quantitative measures and recommended a mid‑year "litmus test" in January to assess how the changes are working after a few months of implementation.

Training and implementation directions

The presentation and subsequent discussion produced several implementation directions that administrators described as part of this rollout: producing a plain‑language summary of the code; merging school improvement and culture teams over the summer to align Tier 1 practices across buildings; updating the district cell phone policy to align with the new state law and then amending the code to match; providing additional DASA coordinator training; and adding short monthly DASA vignettes for staff meetings and biweekly administrative case reviews.

Hendrickson said he expects the board will vote on the revised code at the district's July 8 reorganization meeting; the presenter also noted a minor typo on page 25 that will be corrected before the final posting.

What the board did and next steps

No formal policy vote occurred during the meeting on the code itself. The board and administration agreed to return the revised code for a vote at the July 8 meeting after the staff posts the corrected document and prepares a plain‑language summary and implementation plan. The administration committed to a mid‑year review and to additional training modules for DASA coordinators and building staff.

Ending

Board members framed the code change as part of a broader multi‑year cultural shift: several trustees said culture change takes time and asked administrators to prioritize measurable, short‑term goals so the district can show steady improvement in student behavior and learning conditions.