Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Conduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clay County School Board adopts revised student code of conduct after public hearing
Summary
After a public hearing where parents and advocates urged greater clarity, translation and discipline-data disclosure, the Clay County School Board voted unanimously June 25 to approve revisions to the student code of conduct, with the superintendent promising teaching and implementation supports.
The Clay County School Board voted unanimously June 25 to adopt advertised revisions to the district’s student code of conduct for the 2026–27 school year after a public hearing in which parents and advocates raised concerns about accessibility and data transparency.
During the hearing Patricia Schaefer questioned whether an approximately 80‑page elementary code and an 83‑page secondary code were written in language students could understand and whether the district would provide instruction and translations so all students and families could know expectations. "Is the material written in an English language that these children can read and comprehend?" Schaefer asked.
Advocate Shannon Hubie asked the board to release the discipline data that informed the revisions, including disaggregation by disability status, ESE/504, race and sex, saying families need the underlying information before approving major changes. Hubie also asked for accessible summaries and implementation plans, noting many students are not reading on grade level.
Superintendent Broski said the district plans to teach the parts of the code that "rise to the level of teaching" and pointed to summary charts at the front of the document intended to aid understanding. He warned that delaying approval would restart the statutory advertising timeline and could leave the district without an approved code at the start of school.
Board member Miss Gilhousen moved approval "as advertised," Miss Hansen seconded, and the motion passed by voice vote with all members present supporting it. The board recorded the outcome as "Motion carries; 5–0." During discussion several board members emphasized follow‑through on implementation guidance and parent resources; Miss Hansen proposed pursuing clearer grade‑level procedures and cheat‑sheet summaries for families.
The board directed administration to provide implementation guidance and suggested translating key materials into Spanish for Spanish‑speaking families. No substantive changes to the document were made during the meeting; the approval was adoption of the advertised revision as presented.
The approved motion appears on the record as an advertised adoption; the administration said it will begin teaching the parts of the code slated for instruction and will continue to refine procedural guidance at the school and grade levels.
