Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Education topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Randolph County Schools board approves 2025-26 code of conduct, reviews facilities plan and internet-safety policy

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Randolph County Schools Board of Education approved the district's 2025-26 student code of conduct and several personnel actions at its June 24, 2025, regular meeting and discussed facilities planning and a proposed internet-safety policy tied to state guidance.

The Randolph County Schools Board of Education approved the district's 2025-26 student code of conduct and several personnel actions at its regular meeting June 24, 2025, and discussed facility planning, a state seclusion-and-restraint report and a proposed internet-safety policy.

Superintendent (unnamed), speaking during the superintendent's report, recommended the board approve the 2025-26 student code of conduct; the board voted to approve that policy during the meeting. The superintendent said staff and administrators have already received multiple calls about provisions of the code, especially dress code and backpack guidance, and noted the district expects a transition to more standardized (clear) backpacks.

The superintendent reported that the district's annual seclusion and restraint report required by the State Department showed zero restraints for the 2024–25 school year. "We had 0 restraints this school year," the superintendent said during the report; the board filed that report as required.

On facilities, the superintendent said the district has received a state report and a site-team briefing and asked the board for permission to engage the district's architect to develop cost estimates and preliminary plans. The superintendent said the board discussion and informal feedback favored keeping high school campuses in their current locations and focusing on repairs and upgrades rather than consolidation. He also noted that any capital improvements paid for by voter-approved taxes would need to be organized countywide but said there are options to structure ballot measures so each school zone could vote on an increase that would apply to that zone's schools; the superintendent and a board member, identified in the meeting as "Lance," said the district has software that can map addresses to feeder patterns to administer such a vote.

The board received a presentation of proposed changes to the district's internet safety and use-of-technology policy (to be included in the policy manual for grades 8 and 9 and related provisions). Kalyn (staff member) and the superintendent said the proposed policy draws from the Focus Act and guidance from the State Department; the presentation was informational and the board did not vote on the internet-safety policy at the meeting.

On personnel matters, the board approved the personnel action sheet in two parts: items 1–8 and 10–12 were approved in a single vote; item 9 was later considered separately and approved with Board Member Margie Murphy recorded as abstaining from that vote.

Votes at a glance - Approve agenda: approved (voice vote; no roll-call count recorded). - Approve minutes of June 10, 2025 meeting: approved (voice vote; no roll-call count recorded). - File annual seclusion and restraint report (2024–25): acknowledged/filed; report showed zero restraints (attributed to the superintendent). - Approve 2025–26 Student Code of Conduct: approved (voice vote; no roll-call count recorded). - Presentation: proposed Internet Safety and Use of Technology policy (informational; no vote taken). - Personnel action sheet items 1–8 and 10–12: approved (voice vote; no roll-call count recorded). - Personnel action sheet item 9: approved; Margie Murphy abstained.

The meeting concluded with routine adjournment. The board indicated next steps on the facilities matter will include directing staff to engage the architect for costs and preliminary drawings and later discussing funding and potential ballot approaches with legal/finance staff and the county regarding any tax measures.