Protecting Instructional Time

---

Last night the Board of Education voted (4 to 1) against adopting the proposed policy on Moral Instruction with heavy concern on its impact on instructional time. This is my statement from the board meeting as to why I voted against adopting this policy.

Statement on Proposed Policy 08.135: Moral Instruction

13 November 2025

As we review this proposed Moral Instruction policy, I want to begin with the most important point: the logistics simply do not work. 

On paper, the policy sounds straightforward; one hour a week, one designated day, and a district posted calendar.

But in reality, this policy was not written with an understanding of how schools operate, and certainly not with the scale and complexity of Boone County Schools in mind.

Boone County Schools operates 27 sites,  elementary, middle, and high schools, and no two buildings run on the same schedule. Not even two elementary schools. Not even two middle schools. Not even two high schools.

Every single school adjusts its master schedule every year to meet student needs, staffing assignments, intervention blocks, specials rotations, dual-credit course offerings, CTE pathways, and transportation realities.

That means, under this policy, the district would have to re-evaluate 27 different schedules every year to determine where this designated “one hour, one day” block could realistically fit.

And because schedules shift annually, we would be re-solving the same impossible puzzle every single year. Along with other puzzles that are placed in the laps of public education each year due to poorly written legislation.

This is not a one-time adjustment. This is a permanent annual labor burden, a logistical treadmill with no finish line.

For elementary schools, managing the hour is difficult. For middle and high schools  where students are in dual credit courses, internships, labs, AP classes, electives, and career pathways  it is nearly impossible. These are not “non-core throwaway classes.” These are college-prep and career-prep essentials.

Releasing students during the day could mean pulling them out of: 

Study halls and tutoring, Group projects, Lab work, AP reviews, CTE hands-on training,Arts and enrichment courses, Counseling and mentoring

An hour a week is 26 hours per year, more than four full days of lost time — 2.5% of the entire school year gone. 

No superintendent, principal, counselor, or teacher would ever voluntarily remove 2.5% of a student’s instructional time and call it harmless. That’s not how education works.

To receive moral instruction participating students must leave campus.

The one-hour limit includes travel time realistically leaving 20–30 minutes for instruction, with the disruption stretching far longer for both the students who leave and those who remain.

And anyone that knows the size of Boone County would laugh at this because it takes the average Boone County resident a solid 20-30 minutes to get anywhere in the county outside of their own neighborhood grocery store….and that is on a good day. 

Factor in loading and unloading a bus or van and it will take longer. 

Every building must also create a plan to supervise non-participating students in “noncredit enrichment,” which requires:

Certified staffing, Classroom space, Adjusted supervision schedules, Modified special rotations

This is not a small weekly shift. It is a weekly interruption baked into the school calendar.

And lets keep in mind that the parents of the students not participating in off site moral instruction programs are NOT consenting to this disruption. 

This means that potentially one parent can impact the disruption of the school day for many students whose parents are not given any say in this.

The policy indicates that the students attending moral instruction will be excused for the hour.

But attendance is tracked minute-by-minute. If a student returns late, even one minute, Infinite Campus will record a tardy or absence. Those accumulate and can trigger truancy warnings.

A traffic delay or transportation issue puts families at risk of receiving truancy notices for an absence the statute claims is “present.”

Additionally, if a student is late, are the kids not attending moral instruction in a holding pattern until the student returns to the school?

This is a policy conflict with no clear resolution.

There is still no definition, none, of what “moral instruction” is.

We are not equipped to declare which groups meet an undefined moral threshold. 

This is not the work of public education.

This is personal and family-level decision-making. 

Parents already have these opportunities, on evenings, weekends, and through their faith communities. Rejecting this policy does not reject moral instruction; it keeps it where it belongs, outside the public school day.

The policy requires quarterly reporting to KDE on:

every application, every approval or denial, and every justification.

Even if we deny all requests, the reporting obligation remains.

This is ongoing annual administrative work with no educational benefit.

This proposed policy mirrors the weaknesses of the statute behind it:

It is logistically unsustainable. It is operationally disruptive. It is administratively burdensome.

It forces the district into undefined moral adjudication. And it risks constitutional and legal consequences.

Our responsibility is to protect instructional time, maintain neutrality, and preserve equitable access to education across all 27 of our schools each with its own schedule and diverse needs.

For those reasons, I cannot support adopting this policy as written.

Thank you.

 This (THE SAVE ACT) is reflective of Jim Crow Laws AND will harm women's voting rights. It will impact the poor and middle class because this is A POLL TAX! 

To debunk the cable news rhetoric, the objection to government issued IDs is the cost it takes to obtain them. Now proof of citizenship as well will be  another obstacle because not everyone has access to their birth certificates....another cost. And saying "it is only (insert dollar amount here)" is a sign of privilege. Many people are working several low wage jobs just to survive with the basics. 

All of this to say, any requirement to vote that costs the citizen any amount out of pocket is the equivalent to a poll tax. If we require ID then the government agency requirement should make it free to obtain, like your original social security card.

I haven't even touched on the way this can impact married women whose ID doesnt match their current birth certificate or citizenship documents and making sure you have the correct version of the marriage license.

This is a BAD piece of legislation.

If we make it harder for even one citizen to vote over another, that is called voter suppression.

Because when we strip even one legal law abiding citizen of the ability to exercise their most basic of rights it is suppression of said right. 

Oh and for funsies....here is an article (linked in comments) about another executive order waiting in the wings to mandate this. 

So much for small government and local control over elections. Because the single fastest way to truly corrupt elections and to successfully rig them is by removing local control.

 “women have abandoned women” and somehow it’s all because of “TDS?”

First, protecting women’s rights does not require pretending transgender people don’t exist. That’s not feminism. That’s selective outrage dressed up as sisterhood.

If we’re suddenly this passionate about women’s safety and fairness? 

Fantastic. Let’s go:

Equal pay.

Maternal health outcomes (which in some states are getting worse).

Domestic violence funding.

Sexual assault taken seriously.

Childcare costs.

The fact that women are still overwhelmingly harmed by… men.

But the emergency that defines whether liberal women “look bad” is bathroom stalls and high school sports rosters?

And then comes the magic phrase: “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” The only people that have this are people that are blindly following him.

Apparently if a woman disagrees with Donald Trump’s rhetoric, policies, or behavior, she’s not thinking, she’s “deranged.”

Disagreement isn’t derangement. It’s citizenship.

Reducing complex civil rights questions to “you just hate one orange man” gives him way too much credit. Women didn’t wake up and think, “How can we upset him today? Oh, I know, empathy!” That’s not how moral reasoning works.

Many liberal women support LGBTQ people because they believe civil rights aren’t conditional. Because they remember when their own rights were up for debate...like now. Because they understand what it feels like to be told you don’t belong in certain spaces.

You can absolutely have a policy conversation about sports fairness. That’s legitimate. But framing it as “liberal women turned on their sisters” is lazy. It ignores the fact that women are capable of holding two thoughts at once:

We can care about fairness. We can care about safety. And we can refuse to demonize vulnerable people for political sport.

If there’s a syndrome floating around, it might be the belief that every complicated social issue revolves around one man and his feelings.