Shenendehowa board opens 30-day review of updated code of conduct; parent urges clearer academic penalties

The Shenendehowa Central School District Board of Education opened a 30-day public review of its updated code of conduct during its regular meeting, with administrators describing the draft as aligned with state law and focused on restorative practices. The board noted Education Law 2801(5)(a) requires a public hearing before adopting code changes and said the district expects to seek approval at an upcoming meeting.

District administrator Carmen, who presented the draft, said the revision is largely a clarification and formatting effort but includes a new therapeutic crisis intervention (TCI) section and updated cellphone language. "We reimagined it to really have a restorative focus and really providing an opportunity for growth and learning," Carmen said, describing work that followed an extensive overhaul two years ago.

The meeting drew public comment on a related item: Sarah Quinn, who identified herself as a Shen parent, taxpayer and district employee, urged the district to add clearer language that allows teachers to apply academic consequences, including point deductions where appropriate, so that consequences do not fall disproportionately on teachers. "The teachers who have previewed it would very much suggest…that there be language written into the policy that clearly states that teachers have an opportunity to deduct points," Quinn said, adding that teachers want guidance and stronger upfront deterrents as academic dishonesty becomes easier with AI tools.

Board members and administrators discussed how the new academic integrity policy interfaces with the district grading policy. One board member noted that reducing grades as a punitive measure could conflict with grading principles; administrators said the draft focuses on other disciplinary responses aligned with the code of conduct, such as loss of privileges and progressive, age-appropriate steps, while preserving teacher involvement and parent notification.

Administrators emphasized that the academic integrity policy was developed over several years with input from faculty, department leaders and surveys, and that implementation will include department meetings, training, videos and consistent communication across buildings. The board opened the 30-day review period and solicited feedback; the district plans follow-up work before bringing final approval to a future meeting.

Next steps: the board opened the public comment period for 30 days; administrators asked stakeholders to submit feedback during that window and expect a formal adoption vote at a future board meeting.