Clarke County board reviews student-interrogation policy, asks for local-law-enforcement and 'imminent danger' clarifications

The Clarke County Board of Education reviewed a revised third read of policy LDAJA, governing interrogations and investigations of students, and directed staff to clarify several points before sending the draft out for public comment.

Doctor Scott told the board the draft integrates language from other districts and adds specificity about distinguishing questioning from interrogation, identifying participants and appropriate circumstances, and an exception that allows investigators to question students in some situations without a parent present. “We took the two policies that were recommended that we review related to LDAJA,” Scott said, noting language had been adapted from other districts and expanded for local needs.

Several board members asked for clearer limits and definitions. Linda Davis asked whether the policy is “strictly for police interrogations” or whether it also applies to other investigators; Doctor Scott said the intent is to include police but that the draft could make that explicit. Doctor Patricia Yeager recommended specifying which law enforcement the policy references; she asked, “are we talking local law enforcement officers, but also potentially federal, state?” Scott said staff had intended a local focus and offered to add the word “local.”

Members also pressed for a clearer process to determine ‘imminent danger.’ Yeager asked whether that determination is left to an officer or whether there is an administrative process; Scott said the district envisions school administration and the threat-assessment team (BTAM) being involved in determining whether a situation presents an imminent danger that justifies certain actions.

Age thresholds drew questions as well. Board member Heidi Hensley asked why the draft uses an under‑17 threshold rather than under‑18; members noted many K–12 students can be older than 17 and asked staff to clarify coverage for students who remain in district programs past age 18.

Miss Davis suggested the board could consider rescinding the policy entirely; the chair explained that rescission could be proposed at a future board meeting but for the purposes of the work session the board would return the draft to staff with the requested changes: define ‘local law enforcement,’ clarify who determines imminent danger, and review the age language. The director recommended returning a revised draft for the board to send out for public comment at a later meeting.

The board did not vote on the policy at this session; members directed staff to redraft the language and bring the revised version back for the public‑comment process.