Savannah‑Chatham board reviews code of conduct updates after spike in student incidents

District staff presented a policy review focused on student discipline, urging the board to balance safety, consistent enforcement and supports that help students improve. Mr. Butler, a district staff member who led the presentation, said the work is “anchored in our strategic priority number one, students” and tied to a key performance indicator: lowering the district’s weighted suspension rate, currently 19.89 versus a 19.2 target.

Dr. Millerfields and Mrs. McGuire outlined three high‑priority areas: electronic devices (Rule 16), vaping and responses to violence against staff. On phones they proposed device lock pouches and a limited set of exceptions for students with IEPs and medical needs; Samantha King, the district’s instructional technology director, described the device storage approach. Mrs. McGuire said the district will align the regulation with recent state law changes and “provide the accommodations for whatever they need in school.”

On vaping, the administration recommended moving away from a universal 10‑day removal for middle and high school students to a graduated model that pairs educational interventions with proportionate consequences; for incidents that involve physical harm to staff the team proposed keeping a 10‑day starting penalty to reassure employees. Attorney Dennison advised the board that some statutory protections and the manifestation determination review (MDR) process constrain disciplinary outcomes when students receive special education services: “When we look…we have to have this MDR to determine consequences,” he said, describing the statutory steps that follow incidents involving students with IEPs.

Board members pressed for clarity on practical protections for teachers and on whether shifting toward tighter expectations could create additional legal exposure if procedural timelines are not met. Several members asked for better proactive investments—BCBAs, RBTs, social workers, alternative placements and better IEP/BIP implementation—to reduce incidents before they require disciplinary hearings. The administration acknowledged a compressed review timeline and committed to a return for formal policy language and to follow‑up on stakeholder feedback.

Next steps: staff will return with draft regulation text (Rule 14 and Rule 16 revisions were singled out), implementation guidance for schools, and legal annotations reflecting MDR and other special‑education constraints.