Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses state 'anti‑grooming' laws and timing for required staff training
Summary
Committee members discussed state anti‑grooming laws, DPI guidance (referenced as PI 34), and the difficulty of aligning district policy with mandatory staff training that DPI has not yet finished developing; the chair said policy first reading is scheduled and a compliance deadline was cited.
Committee members discussed recent state "anti‑grooming" laws and how the district should align its staff conduct policy and training with those requirements. A committee member asked whether district policy references the DPI materials and recommended the committee review the DPI mailing; the chair said the district needs to adopt policy that represents state expectations and noted the policy first reading is being held that night and that a required action was due September 1.
Members raised a practical issue: the statutory package includes a mandatory training requirement to be completed by the end of the 2026‑27 school year, but committee members said DPI had not yet completed or approved the training program. One committee member described the flyer as coming from DPI (not the state legislature) and observed DPI had been delayed in developing materials, complicating the district's ability to fully reference training in policy until the materials exist. The group agreed the district should reference statutory ethical standards and incorporate DPI expectations into the policy once available.
