At the heart of the meeting was the contentious revision of policy 512, addressing school-sponsored student publications and activities. The board’s discussion was sparked by recent changes in Minnesota legislation, specifically the student journalism law enacted in 2024. The revised policy aims to align with the new legal framework, emphasizing that student expression must not include defamatory or harassing content and must avoid disrupting school activities. Legal counsel had advised these revisions to ensure compliance with the law.

A critical point of debate centered around the inclusion of the term “expresses” in the policy language. Concerns were raised that this term might inadvertently limit a student journalist’s capacity to report or critique certain speech. One board member argued for the removal of “expresses,” suggesting it was overly restrictive and could hinder the reporting capabilities of student journalists. They underscored the necessity of balancing First Amendment rights with the maturity levels of students, advocating for retaining the phrase “may exercise editorial control” to offer administrative discretion without imposing mandatory restrictions.

The potential legal ramifications of the policy revisions were a concern. A member highlighted Minnesota statute section 121A.80, cautioning that removing specific language from the policy could contravene the law, potentially exposing the district to legal challenges. This apprehension was echoed by several board members.

Amid the debate, a paragraph within the policy that affirms the rights of a student media advisor to teach professional journalism standards provided a degree of reassurance. This provision was seen as a safeguard, offering editorial guidance and oversight for student publications. Yet, skepticism about the policy’s direction persisted, with some members expressing wariness about the potential impact on student journalism.

In addition to policy 512, the board addressed policy 425 concerning staff development. This policy had been previously tabled for legal consultation, and the meeting examined a proposed revision that would transfer the authority for committee appointments from the school board to the administration. The rationale was that administrators possess greater insight into potential committee members within the district, streamlining the process. However, one member voiced concerns that this shift could reduce the board’s influence in appointing staff development committee members, sparking a broader discussion about the balance of involvement between the board and administration. Despite differing opinions, the committee approved the revisions by a vote of seven to one.

The board also reviewed policy 625, which deals with the use and reproduction of copyrighted materials in educational settings. Significant revisions were proposed to clarify what constitutes fair use, particularly regarding films shown in classrooms. The intent was to provide clearer guidelines for teachers, improving upon the previous policy’s vague references to fair use. The board decided to table the discussion on policy 625 until October 7, opting for legal review to preemptively address potential issues before presenting the policy for board approval.

Finally, policy 599, related to social media use within the school context, was revisited following prior tabling due to First Amendment concerns. Legal advisors had reviewed the policy, and changes were made to align it with legal standards. The board expressed satisfaction with the thoroughness of the legal counsel’s review, acknowledging that the revisions effectively addressed concerns raised in past meetings.