Board pulls student code of conduct after heated debate over 'discretion' and restorative-practices rollout

The Clarke County Board of Education voted to pull its proposed student code of conduct from the agenda for additional review after an extended April discussion over multiple uses of the word “discretion” and whether restorative-practices supports are in place districtwide.

Board member Mary P. Bagby urged the board to remove the word from any policy that governs punishment, saying the term “opens the door for discrimination” and citing cases she said showed disproportionate punishment of Black students. “Discretion needs to be taken out. The law should be the law and the rule should be the rule,” Bagby said.

Attorney Pruitt told the board removing the word entirely may be legally impractical because disciplinary schemes inherently require some judgment. “About the best you can do in the law is to give as much objective guidance and guardrail for that discretion as possible,” Pruitt said, while acknowledging the risk discretion presents for unequal outcomes.

Board member Mark Evans argued principals need judgment to address individual circumstances and pointed to an appeals process for disputed discipline. “If we don't have the word discretion in there, we don't allow our principals to deal with the human being in front of them,” Evans said.

Superintendent Dr. Scott said the district already has a three-year contract with the Georgia Conflict Center (GCC) for restorative-practices training and that all schools have sent teams to GCC training, though levels of implementation vary. Staff told the board GCC proposed a third‑year package and the district budget currently contains $26,000 for GCC support, a figure derived from a district assessment of school needs; some board members and community members urged increasing that amount to $50,000 or more to accelerate rollout and ensure parity across schools.

The board asked staff to return with a focused review of the six instances of “discretion” in the code of conduct, plus recommended replacement language and guardrails to reduce discretionary disparity. Dr. Scott also committed to a June presentation unpacking data, interventions, and restorative-practices implementation across schools.

The code of conduct will not be on the board’s voting agenda tonight; staff will bring revisions and supporting material for board review at the May work session and a fuller update in June.

What happens next: staff will (1) identify the six code locations flagged by the board, (2) propose language and objective guardrails to reduce discretionary disparity, (3) supply data on implementation and disparities, and (4) return to the board for further review in May and a behavior/implementation report in June.