Kingsport Board Of Education Approves New Rule Regarding Student Interrogations

Image Credit: Drewdlecam / CC

The Tennessee Conservative Staff –

After much discussion and comments from opposed citizens, the Kingsport Board of Education approved a new policy regarding the interrogation of students.

The policy was approved by the board in a 4-1 vote after its second reading on Tuesday night. The only nay vote came from board member Julie Byars.

Discussion of the policy, including feedback from City Attorney Bart Rowlett, lasted more than thirty minutes. 

School Board President Melissa Woods told NewsChannel 11, “We always want to align our policies with state law. So this is not something we’re just making up by any stretch of the imagination. And really, the purpose of the policy is just to educate our students, to educate our employees, our educators, support staff and our parents, quite frankly, on what the law is and to assure them that we’re going to comply with the law.”

Assistant Superintendent Andy True noted that the policy is based on a model provided by the Tennessee School Boards Association. 

The policy gives schools permission to question a student who is accused of breaking school rules, even if a parent is not present. It also allows them to hand out punishment to students who refuse to provide an answer to school officials or who tell a lie.

Rowlett clarified that the punishment for refusing to answer would only apply when students were being questioned about non-criminal matters. It would not be in effect when questioning comes from law enforcement regarding a criminal issue.

“This policy can’t trump constitutional rights, if law enforcement were to be involved in questioning a student, those same constitutional protections would apply,” Rowlett said.

The right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment would still be applicable.

Board member Todd Golden stated that having to wait for parents to arrive before questioning students could create additional problems. He referenced a possible scenario of two students fighting.

“Then we run into a bit of an issue of locking down the entire school system until somebody can get there to be able to ask the kids what happened here,” Golden said.

The policy does state that the school is required to attempt to contact parents if police are going to question students, “unless circumstances require otherwise.” Police can still proceed with an interrogation without a parent or guardian present.

Superintendent Chris Hampton reminded the group that school officials do not have any say in a situation involving a police interrogation. 

He also noted that notifying parents depends on the urgency of the matter.

“If we’re investigating something that could result in bodily harm to a student, then the parent contact might not happen immediately,” Hampton said.

Hampton went on to say that a police interrogation at school is rare and typically only occurs in a serious situation.

He also stated that the new policy does not give any new allowances to school administrators.

“These practices have been at play in schools for the entirety of my time in this school system,” Hampton said.

Byers stated that her issue with the policy was the portion that punished a student for not answering questions.

“I think a child has the right to be quiet if they’re not comfortable because sometimes a kid gets really nervous and they’ll say things just so they can get out that principal’s office,” Byers said.

Rowlett noted that the policy says a student “may” be punished and does not say they absolutely would be.

Golden said that similar policies are already in effect in at least 60 other districts across the state.