The South Washington County Schools Board approved eight annual policy updates on Feb. 20 after an extended public discussion about whether school signage that highlights particular racial groups is appropriate in district facilities.

Superintendent Julie Nielsen brought forward the eight policies that had been reviewed at the prior meeting and said the updates reflect current state law. Nielsen said she was “asking for approval of those 8 policies.” The policies included family and medical leave (410), harassment and violence (525.1), mandated reporting of child neglect or abuse, student discipline, and system accountability updates.

Before the roll call on the subsequent resolution to appoint a board member, multiple board members debated whether posters or signage that single out a racial group are exclusionary. One board member described seeing signage at East Ridge High School that said “protect black youth” and another posted phrase “to be young, to be gifted, and to be black” on an Inclusion Center door; that member urged the board to consider whether such on-site displays contradict the harassment policy’s language about creating a hostile or intimidating academic environment. The speaker asked the board to either change the policy or change practice and said they would vote no on the policies as presented unless the board addressed the issue.

Other board members disagreed on the implications of displaying statements meant to uplift historically marginalized students. One member said institutions and employers often explicitly name groups (women, veterans, people of color, LGBTQ) to signal inclusion to groups that otherwise may not feel included, and asked how the district should help students feel included if it does not expressly name groups in signage or communications. Another board member framed the displays as free expression and urged members to attend the school’s Black History Month event to hear student perspectives.

After discussion, a motion to approve the eight policies (moved by Sharon Van Leer; seconded by Simi Kutnaik) was called. The final vote was taken by voice; the motion passed. The meeting record does not include a roll-call tally for this policy vote in the transcript provided.

Board members identified the broader question of how district policy on harassment and school practice around cultural recognition interact; district staff said the policy text reflects state law and noted that discussions about diversity, equity, and inclusion practices are handled in separate forums. Several board members asked administration to consider follow-up conversations about signage, inclusive practices, and how policy language is implemented across schools.

The policies will be listed as approved in the board minutes; administration and board members indicated they will continue conversations about how school displays and programming align with district harassment and inclusion policy.