Legislators, districts debate guardian rules and costs as school-safety measures are drafted
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
District officials told legislators guardianship and training provisions in proposed school-safety bills will be in place by the 2025–26 school year but flagged staffing, mental-health screening and capital costs that could total large sums for districts.
During the Oct. 11 working session, legislators and Washington County School District staff discussed a proposed "guardian" requirement in school-safety legislation and the practical implications for districts, particularly small and rural schools.
An unidentified legislator described the bill's intent as preventing school shootings and balancing parental rights and child protection in education settings. District staff said Washington County has identified a guardian in every school but that training and full implementation are scheduled for the 2025–26 school year. A district official said smaller schools would struggle to designate guardians: one small K–8 district example described a school with 15 students and two teachers where appointing a guardian or providing an SRO would be impractical.
District staff raised recurring cost concerns. One official estimated the capital costs for safety retrofits — including security film for classroom glass and other measures — could be "close to a hundred million" across the district. Separately, a participant estimated recurring mental-health screening for guardians could cost between $300 and $500 per guardian annually and noted the legislation as drafted would require annual re-screening.
Board members also described legal and risk-management constraints. Several pointed to guidance from the State Board of Education and to risk-management practices that influence whether the state will defend districts that adopt policies departing from state recommendations.
Legislators said they would draft the bill and bring a draft back to district leaders for feedback, and they acknowledged earlier drafts had been tweaked after district input. No vote or formal action occurred at the session; participants agreed to ongoing communication before the legislative session begins.