Murfreesboro board approves first-reading of sweeping policy updates required by new state laws

The Murfreesboro City Schools Board on June 24 approved on first reading a package of policy revisions that staff said were required to comply with recent Tennessee legislation, including changes to antidiscrimination policies, threat‑assessment reporting, student searches, internet safeguards and rules for personal communication devices.

District staff told the board the changes reflect multiple public chapters passed in the most recent legislative session and that some language (for example the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism) was incorporated verbatim because the state now requires it. “This is now a requirement of law that we include that definition in each of our antidiscrimination policies,” a staff presenter said during the meeting.

The board packet grouped roughly 16 policies for first reading. Highlights included: the inclusion of the IHRA definition in the district’s antidiscrimination policies (Board policies 4.1, 5.5 and 6.304); an update to the district public‑records policy removing fax as an acceptable submission method; changes to the surplus property policy reflecting a federal threshold increase (from $5,000 to $10,000); and a library‑materials change clarifying materials cannot be excluded solely because they are religious, per state law.

Several safety‑and‑discipline policies prompted extended discussion. Revisions to the threat assessment policy (3.204) implement a state requirement that parents be notified within 48 hours when the district reports a “significant student threat or disruptive behavior” to law enforcement, and that the board receive a quarterly report on all such incidents. Board members pressed staff about the definition of “significantly disruptive behavior.” A staff member said the phrase is not defined in the statute or the state model policy and that the district consulted TSBA (Tennessee School Boards Association) guidance. She added that, in practice, notification would occur when the district has turned a matter over to police for assistance.

Board members asked staff to research whether other districts have adopted a local definition; staff agreed to review comparable policies and consider clarifying language for second reading. One board member said he would “throw it in there” — asking staff to incorporate a clear description of the threshold for reporting if feasible.

Other notable changes approved on first reading included: a requirement that school administrators or school resource officers who conduct student searches complete state‑mandated training (policy 6.303); internet‑use safeguards that block social media for students unless a teacher explicitly authorizes access for instruction (policy 4.406); limits and reporting requirements for grading and report cards to include universal reading screener scores for K–8 students (policy 4.6); a ban on student use of personal communication devices in instructional settings with stated exceptions for health, disability or emergency situations (policy 6.312); and an update to physical activity requirements for elementary students, which raises the required daily minutes of physical activity.

Board votes on each policy were taken in grouped motions. Staff repeatedly advised the board that the changes were made to align district policy with state legal requirements; several board members asked for small technical clarifications ahead of second readings. The motions carried with no opposition on the first reading for each policy as presented.

Staff said additional refinements will be returned at second reading, including clarifying which school administrator must be present for principal‑initiated searches and possibly specifying the district’s process for discretionary decisions about recordings captured on personal devices.