Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Safety Mental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lexington 1 unveils inaugural annual safety, mental‑health and services report; board signals deeper policy work
Summary
Superintendent Keith Price presented the district’s first annual report on safety, mental health and support services, citing SRO coverage in every school, new grants and upgrades, 1,565 students served by partner agencies, and 171 students identified for McKinney‑Vento services so far this year.
Lexington County School District One presented its first annual update on student and staff safety, mental health, and access to support services, and the board discussed next steps to translate the data into policy action.
Superintendent Keith Price told the board the district asked law enforcement partners to assist at more than 5,000 events last year, spending just north of $158,000; completed more than 200 behavior threat‑assessment trainings, over 560 drills, and one reunification training; and upgraded roughly 1,200 cameras and trained 100% of employees on a district alert system. Price said the district currently has a school resource officer (SRO) in every school and confirmed ongoing vape detector installs in all middle and high schools.
Price also summarized mental‑health supports: 1,565 students were served by outside providers last year (1,473 on‑site), the district added two new MOU agencies this year, and the education foundation provided more than $135,000 in direct assistance (LEAP grants, grocery gift cards, teacher supports). He said the district identified 171 students so far this year who could benefit from McKinney‑Vento services for students experiencing homelessness.
Public commenters earlier in the meeting had urged additional visibility for adults in bathrooms and other supervision measures after describing incidents of student drug use. Board members responded by asking for either a board workshop or committee to study safety, technology and mental‑health policy intersections; some favored a board workshop to review existing policies and identify gaps before proposing new policy changes.
Board members asked concrete questions about student engagement (peer reporting), school counselor protocols and how the district measures summer loss or gains in learning. District staff said counselors, social workers and mental‑wellness teams meet regularly, and staff described protocols for referrals and on‑site crisis response.
What happens next: the board asked administration to prepare additional detail for a future workshop or committee on policies linking physical safety, technology use, and student mental health. The meeting closed with a request to consider regular updates and possible public workshops to solicit community input on safety and mental‑health priorities.
Sources: district presentation and public comment at the Sept. 16 board meeting.
