The Boone County Board of Education on Nov. 13 declined to adopt a proposed district policy intended to implement Kentucky Revised Statute 158.200, which allows local boards to permit pupils to be excused for up to one hour per week for district-approved off-campus moral instruction.

Board member Carolyn Wolf moved to approve the second reading of board policy O 8.135, the KSBA-drafted framework for handling moral-instruction provider requests; the motion failed 1–4. During an extended discussion, trustees, staff and members of the public raised detailed operational and legal concerns.

Why it mattered: Opponents said the policy would routinely remove students from instruction and create an annual administrative burden across Boone County’s 27 schools. "This is a permanent, annual labor burden," board member (speaker 14) said, warning that the required one-hour block — which must include travel time — would frequently reduce meaningful classroom instruction to 20–30 minutes and could amount to roughly 26 hours lost per student per year.

Board attorney (speaker 8) told trustees the statute requires boards to consider written provider applications but does not compel districts to adopt a uniform policy. He explained the law sets baseline qualifications (insurance, a transportation plan and background checks) but leaves other details undefined, which creates legal ambiguity for local boards considering approvals or denials.

Public comment: Teachers and residents urged the board to reject the policy. Teacher Carrie Judd said the measure would be "very disruptive to our school day" and asked whether the district would be required to replace lost instructional minutes. Several speakers cited logistics — bus loading and unloading, lunch schedules, and supervision of students who remain on campus — and worried about exposure to unplanned legal and attendance consequences for tardy returns.

What supporters said: Some trustees and community members framed the issue as a parental-rights matter and noted the statute’s permissive language ("may provide"). Others said a clear policy could create neutral guardrails for vetting providers and defending board decisions. The attorney and administration said whether the board adopts a single policy or evaluates applications on a case-by-case basis, the board will still be required to consider any written provider submission.

Board next steps: By voting down the KSBA sample policy, trustees left open the path for individual provider applications to come before the board. Administration said it will place any pending written provider application on a future agenda and recommended a record be made showing the board’s operational concerns if an application is denied.

Sources: Board discussion and attorney explanation during the second reading of board policy O 8.135 (KRS 158.200).