Warren County School Board Weighs Scent Awareness Policy

A proposed scent-awareness policy for Warren County Public Schools drew discussion from School Board members on June 3, with several saying they support the idea of courtesy and awareness but question whether the language belongs in formal board policy.

The proposal came during the first reading of revisions to Policy KGC/GBEC/JFCH, currently titled “Tobacco Products and Nicotine Vapor Products.” The proposed update would add “Scent Awareness” to the policy title and include language encouraging students, staff, and visitors to help maintain a scent-reduced environment in school buildings.

The current policy prohibits students from possessing, using, or distributing tobacco products or nicotine vapor products on school buses, school property, or at school-sponsored activities. It also directs the superintendent to develop regulations for enforcement among students, employees, and visitors.

The proposed scent-awareness language says Warren County Public Schools “strives to protect the indoor air quality of its campus” and notes that strong scents and fragrances, including cleaning supplies, can contribute to poor indoor air quality. The draft says synthetic fragrances may contain volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, which can increase the risk of asthma, eye and respiratory irritation, headaches, dizziness, nausea, and skin irritation.

The proposal does not ban scented products. Instead, it asks for voluntary cooperation and encourages students, staff, and visitors not to bring cleaning products, deodorizers, or personal care products into school facilities unless they are fragrance-free. It also asks students and staff to refrain from or minimize the use of perfumes, colognes, and other strong fragrances.

Board member Tom McFadden said he understands the concern, as he is also affected by smells, but questioned whether the issue rises to the level of a board policy.

“Typically, school board policies are like, ‘If you do this, this is going to happen. If you don’t do this, this is going to happen,” McFadden said. “This is just sort of like, ‘Hey, everybody, be aware.’ And I think people should be aware, because people might not understand how it affects people. But I don’t know how we can do a policy about how it would be enforced.”

McFadden said the language may fit better in a school or student-staff handbook, where it could serve as a reminder for students and employees to be considerate of others.

“I think it’s fine if a school wants to put it in their handbook and say, ‘This is what we’re going to do,’ in a student-staff handbook, saying, ‘Here’s what to think about when you’re getting stuff on your body that day. Think about other people,” McFadden said. “But I don’t think it should be in a policy.”

Board member Sara Jones agreed with McFadden’s concern about enforcement and said board policy is usually connected to legal requirements or clear consequences.

“I agree with Tom,” Jones said. “I think because policy usually is related to a legal aspect, and we have no way to enforce this as a policy.”

Jones said she believed the language would be better placed in both the staff handbook and student handbook, possibly near the dress code. She also raised concerns that putting the language in policy could give families the impression that the division could take action in situations where a student is affected by another person’s scent.

“I don’t want to give people this false hope that, ‘OK, my child is sensitive to this scent and it gives them migraines. So we’ve got this policy. Now I have something I can do,” Jones said.

Board member Melanie Salins also supported awareness but said there is a difference between asking people to be considerate and creating a policy that may be difficult to apply.

Salins said she has personal experience with sensitivities, including being gluten-free and sensitive to VOCs, and has had to learn ways to protect herself and avoid certain triggers. Still, she said the board should be careful not to make the policy language too broad.

“I think maybe the difference in my head is a difference between how people are just existing versus a discharge of scents,” Salins said.

She said some specific issues, such as students spraying hairspray or Axe body spray in a classroom, could be addressed more clearly. She also mentioned plug-in air fresheners as an example of something that may fit into policy for safety reasons.

“Just be courteous and aware is great, but it’s not a policy,” Salins said.

The proposed policy includes a general guideline that, for those who use scented products, the scent should not be detectable more than an arm’s length away. It also says scented products should not be applied in public areas.

Because the June 3 discussion was part of a first reading, the School Board did not take final action on the revision. The proposal may return for further review before any final vote.