Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety Communication topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent urges Clay County Board to adopt prompt threat-notification policy after delayed alerts
Summary
A parent told the Clay County Board of Education that delayed staff and public notifications after an alleged student threat denied families the chance to make informed choices; the board agreed to review existing policy, consult law enforcement and PSBA, and consider a countywide notification protocol.
Ms. Hatcher, a Clay County parent, told the school board on Sept. 12 that the district’s handling of an alleged threat left parents and staff uninformed and asked the board to adopt a formal notification policy.
"By not informing parents of an alleged threat being investigated, you just took away the parents' right to make an informed decision for their children," Ms. Hatcher said, urging a written protocol that would notify parents, faculty and other county schools and spell out realistic lockdown and alert procedures.
Hatcher said faculty and staff were not alerted until about 8:00 a.m., the school system’s first public social-media post went out near 11:00 a.m., and a telephone call-out occurred around 4:20 p.m. She told the board those announcements were made on Sept. 11 (the next official school day) and said the timeline prevented parents from deciding whether to send children to school that day.
The board acknowledged the concern and asked staff to investigate options. Director (name not given) said the district would "start in the morning with Mr. Edwards to see if the PSBA does have a policy about public notifications" and that the district would consult Officer Josh Dickson and Upper Cumberland directors to learn how other counties handle similar incidents. "That'll give us some ideas," the director said, and asked Ms. Hatcher to provide a copy of her remarks so staff could make sure all points were addressed.
Board members and other parents discussed possible notification methods, including mass texts and phone call-outs, and suggested forming a committee to draft or update the district’s communication protocol. One board member warned that delaying official information can fuel rumors and misinformation, while others said the district must balance timely transparency with investigative caution.
Votes at a glance: The board recorded a series of routine approvals during the same meeting, including minutes and agenda approval; purchase of a 78-passenger bus via a piggyback bid; authorization to seek bids for employee medical insurance for 2025; resurfacing the central office parking lot with county assistance; approval of the 2025–26 school calendar; adoption of the state-recommended differentiated pay plan for 2024–25; acceptance of playground tile and ramp quotes; purchase of Chromebooks/Chromeboxes/desktops through grant funding; approval of multiple student trip requests; and first/second readings of multiple board policies. All items were approved by voice vote as recorded in the meeting.
What happens next: The director said staff will research sample policies and law-enforcement recommendations and report back. The board set collaborative conferencing with teachers for Sept. 23 and said it will consider policy changes if required. The board did not adopt a formal notification policy at the Sept. 12 meeting.
