Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Handbooks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pulaski board to revise student handbooks after debate over essential oils, dress code and cellphone rules
Summary
At a board workshop, Pulaski Community School District staff presented proposed handbook updates for elementary, middle and high schools; trustees raised objections to an "essential oils" prohibition, detailed dress-code wording and cellphone enforcement and asked staff to return revised language next week after consulting Neola.
District staff reviewed proposed updates to the elementary, middle and high school handbooks and the board asked staff to return revised language for final approval at next weeks meeting.
Staff highlighted several changes across buildings, including added guardian language and an "advanced learners" section in the elementary handbook; a "sincerely held religious beliefs" opt-out clause introduced in the middle-school handbook (a Neola recommendation); and new high-school provisions including senior release, a common grading scale and cellphone-policy revisions. Staff said the cellphone language preserves teacher discretion and includes a tracking mechanism to collect enforcement data.
Trustees questioned specific items. One trustee objected to dress-code language on page 50 as overly detailed and inconsistent; another objected to a provision on page 41 that would treat essential oils and "oil-like products" under prohibited-intoxicant language. That trustee said "essential oils are not drugs and should not be in that list." Another trustee told the board they would not approve any handbook that retains the essential-oils language.
Julie, a district staff member who identified herself in the meeting, said a small number of incidents have raised medical concerns (for example, sensitivities or seizure triggers) and agreed to consult Neola and the districts nursing staff about whether essential oils belong in a nursing/medical section or under prohibited possession. Staff and trustees agreed to ask Julie to bring clarified language from Neola and to re-present the handbooks at the next meeting.
Board members also questioned whether communicable-disease language (pages 64—65) duplicates existing board policy and whether that kind of guidance should appear in the handbook. Staff noted Neolas templates can be used as a double-check and that duplication is not required if policy already covers the matter.
The board did not vote on the handbooks at the workshop and scheduled the item for further review next week.
