Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews PreK–8 student code of conduct; members ask for statutory clarifications and appeals language
Summary
Administrators presented a draft PreK–8 student code of conduct and board members asked for clarifications on harassment language, statutory references to vandalism thresholds and appeal procedures; the board asked for corrections and tabled the item for return in August.
Administrators presented a proposed PreK–8 student code of conduct on July 8 and asked the USD 253 Board of Education to review the document and approve it at a later meeting.
The presenter said the draft organizes definitions (assigned location, corrective teaching, in‑school/out‑of‑school suspension), sets grade‑appropriate consequences and aims to give parents and students clarity about disciplinary steps. “This will also allow for parents to know, so that they know that if I have an office referral for the first time for being late to class, this will be the consequence,” the presenter said.
Board members pressed several specifics. One asked why the document included wording about students harassing adult staff; administrators responded that such incidents are rare at the elementary level but could occur at middle or high school, and that the high school currently maintains its own handbook but the district plans further alignment.
A board member raised a statutory concern about how the handbook treats serious vandalism: the draft defines felony vandalism as damage in excess of $500 and an immediate five‑day suspension, but the member said Kansas law sets the misdemeanor/felony threshold differently and offered to provide the statutory citation for review. Administrators agreed to check and correct statutory citations.
Members also suggested adding clearer appeal procedures to the handbook (how to appeal discipline decisions to the board) and clarifying who is meant by the term “chief administrative officer” in the long‑term suspension section; administrators said they would add those clarifications and bring back the document for further consideration in August.
The board did not adopt the code at first reading; the item will return after staff incorporate the requested changes.
At the same meeting members also discussed student handbook language that shifts some mandatory wording from "will" to "may" in truancy interventions; administrators said they would provide the rationale and examples of application when the item returns.
