Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Assignment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council Rock committee tables change to student assignment wording after board debate
Summary
The policy committee discussed whether to require that district circumstances and students' educational interests both justify assigning students outside their attendance area. Board members differed on replacing "and/or" with "and." The committee agreed to defer the item for solicitor review and examples from other districts.
Council Rock School District policy committee members on May 5 debated whether Policy 206’s sentence about assigning students outside their attendance area should require both district circumstances and the educational interest of students or allow either.
The dispute centered on a sentence in the policy that currently reads that “the superintendent or designee may assign a student to a school other than the one designated for the attendance area when such exception is justified by factors including, but not limited to, district circumstances, and or the educational interest of the students.” Board members asked whether that clause should use “and” (meaning both factors must apply) or “and/or” (allowing either factor alone).
The difference matters because some members said “and” emphasizes the district’s stated motto and the primacy of student educational interest in assignment decisions, while others said using “or” preserves flexibility when operational factors such as class size or safety require reassignment.
Michael Roosevelt, school board, urged using “and” and said, “I believe it should read and the educational interest of the student,” arguing the district’s primary product is education and the policy should reflect that priority. Other board members cautioned that a strict “and” could “tie our hands” when circumstances such as overcrowding require assignments made for operational reasons.
District staff explained that solicitors have already reviewed the current draft and that similar language varies across neighboring districts. The committee agreed to ask district staff to collect sample wording from other districts and to ask the solicitor for legal guidance before bringing the item back to the policy committee in June.
The committee did not adopt language at the May meeting and instead tabled the policy for one month pending solicitor input and comparative examples from other districts.
The committee’s decision to defer means the existing Policy 206 text remains in place until the board considers a revised recommendation at a future meeting.
