LRSD attorney recommends policy updates to align with state law; board voices concern over narrowing nondiscrimination language
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Staff attorney told the board that several board policies will be updated to mirror ASBA model language and recent state law; he cited an Attorney General opinion and state acts that limit creation of protected classes, prompting a board discussion about how to continue signaling support for historically marginalized students while remaining legally compliant.
The district’s counsel presented proposed updates to board policy and explained why some language will be changed to align with state law.
Speaker 6 described a broad policy-update effort covering sections 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and said many changes are modeled on Arkansas School Boards Association guidance, including incorporating statutory text where appropriate. He warned that the earlier ambiguity in Policy 1.14 would be remedied if the board adopts the suggested revisions.
On nondiscrimination language, Speaker 6 referenced an Attorney General opinion and recent state acts, saying they restrict the creation of protected classes not enumerated in state law. "Since it was last adopted, the General Assembly has passed a statute on public comment...I don't see any solid basis to not follow that guidance, based on the reasoning of that AG's opinion," Speaker 6 said. He specifically cited Act 137 of 2015 and Acts 461 and 953 of 2021 and noted AG opinion number 2023-059 as informing changes.
Several board members expressed concern about removing or narrowing explicit references to sexual orientation and gender identity. "It deeply disappoints me and distresses me that we may be put in the position to take a step backwards...to expand the number of groups that we explicitly say we are not going to discriminate against," Speaker 9 said, urging continued support for marginalized students even if explicit policy language must change.
Why it matters: Changes to nondiscrimination language guided by state law could alter the district’s explicit public statements about which groups it enumerates in policy, raising political and community concern despite staff counsel's view that the changes are legally prudent.
Next steps: Counsel will circulate proposed policy language and recommendations; the board will continue committee-level review and will vote on policy revisions at a future meeting once text and committee input are finalized.