Updates on the Fight for Quality Public Education in Brevard County, FL
0:00 Thank you.
1:00 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
1:15 and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God,
1:19 indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
1:23 On today’s agenda, we have the following review of proposed
1:26 changes to the 2026-2027 code of conduct, student accommodation
1:30 plan review, strategic facilities planning update, and
1:33 discussion on revising policy 5520.
1:36 Ms. Dampierre.
1:38 Thank you.
1:38 Good morning, Superintendent Rendell and school board members.
1:42 I have Mr. Armstrong, Director of Systems of Support, who will
1:46 be co-presenting with me this morning, as well as some team
1:50 members that will be scribing in real time to any recommended
1:54 changes.
1:56 Today, I’m presenting the proposed revisions to the 2026-2027
2:01 code of student conduct developed by the district discipline
2:04 workgroup in collaboration with district stakeholders.
2:09 These recommendations reflect a comprehensive review of current
2:13 practices and stakeholder input to ensure consistency and
2:17 support a positive learning environment for all students.
2:24 With the opportunity to convene the district discipline workgroup
2:30 from November through February to review and update the Code of
2:35 Student Conduct.
2:37 Some of the district discipline workgroup consisted of
2:41 representatives from our Ruffard, excuse me, Teachers
2:46 Association.
2:50 Yeah, I was just kidding.
2:51 We got some water coming, Ms. Dampierre.
2:53 Sorry.
2:54 Here you go.
2:57 Get a problem back.
2:58 The district discipline workgroup consisted of representatives
3:09 from each board member of Bavard Federal Teachers Unit, Bavard’s
3:17 Association of School Administrators,
3:19 local union 1010, students, school resource officers, and
3:24 community members.
3:25 And we met for three two-hour sessions throughout that time.
3:29 So we really had some good feedback throughout those sessions.
3:33 As you can see, we had our PBS core team.
3:40 Once we met with the discipline workgroup, our district core
3:44 team met to review the feedback and revise the document and plan.
3:49 So every time we met with the discipline workgroup, they knew
3:52 what that feedback was and then we reviewed it.
3:55 So then we could start another process for the next work of the
3:59 group.
4:00 And then the timeline was in March 2026, which is today, we were
4:08 going to present the work of the group and the recommendations
4:11 to the school board.
4:12 And then our timeline is from April to May to have a final Code
4:16 of Conduct approved by the board.
4:22 A structured protocol guided the workgroup through a continuous
4:26 cycle of feedback to reach consensus to the revisions of the
4:30 Code of Student Conduct and we really had a lot of good
4:35 conversations as well as discussion as to what should be what
4:42 they would like to have changed as well as things that are going
4:47 good with the Code of Conduct.
4:49 So at this time, I will turn the presentation over to Mr.
4:52 Armstrong and he will review those recommendations and we will
4:56 be scribing the information, any feedback in real time so you
4:59 can see what those changes are.
5:01 And then that will conclude our presentation.
5:05 Okay.
5:09 Good morning, Dr.
5:10 Rendell and board members.
5:11 Let me just jump right in here.
5:16 All right, like Ms. Stampier said, this will be live scribed in
5:25 the back so any feedback we get, we’ll be able to capture that
5:29 live here.
5:29 If you can use the folders that were provided you this morning,
5:33 that’s going to have the most updated information.
5:36 And then I’m just going to basically go right through and then
5:40 feel free to ask questions as you see fit.
5:45 All right, so looking at how you would, actually, you know what,
5:48 let me go back for it, let me explain real quick, let me get
5:51 back into this, excuse me.
5:53 Let me show you actually how to read it just in case this is a
5:57 refresher.
5:58 When you’re looking at the spreadsheet, there’s a kind of a
6:01 guide on the top there.
6:03 So your item number is going to be listed of items one through,
6:07 let’s say, 15.
6:09 So those are the topics we’re talking about.
6:11 Next to it is the session.
6:14 And the session is basically going to be what session, either
6:17 session one, two, or three, that it was mentioned at the DDWG.
6:20 Revised, yes or no, the one that’s on the third column there.
6:26 That’s basically, is it a revision of something in a current
6:29 practice or is it something new?
6:30 The COSC or the Code of Student Conduct Topic Key is going to
6:36 just tell you if we’re using any acronyms, what those mean.
6:39 So SB, you might see as student behaviors, CS, corrective
6:43 strategy, and then the level numbers are referring to the charts
6:46 in our Code of Student Conduct on pages nine through 18 on the
6:50 current student Code of Conduct.
6:52 The recommendation is a summary of the DDWG’s recommendation.
7:01 So you’ll see next to that topic on the COSC, you’ll see the
7:05 recommendation area or any type of recommendation that they
7:09 wanted to see move forward on the Code of Student Conduct.
7:13 The proposed change or addition is the next area, and that’s
7:19 where you’ll see additional information.
7:22 So if you’re looking at that one there, you’ll see if we’re
7:25 adding something new and we’re replacing the language,
7:28 we basically have crossed it out and italicized and bolded it if
7:32 we’re changing the definition of a current corrective action or
7:37 student behavior.
7:38 The impact is this proposed impact of what it would take in
7:43 order to accomplish that recommendation,
7:46 whether it’s a change to the Code of Conduct, change to policy,
7:50 training to our staff, et cetera.
7:53 And again, that proposed key change is what I just mentioned
7:56 before.
7:57 Any changes are going to be underlined, italicized, and bolded.
8:00 Anything with the strike-through is language that we would be
8:03 recommending to be removed.
8:05 And on that far one there is going to be the feedback one, and
8:09 that’ll be exactly where we’re going to be capturing your
8:11 information live.
8:12 Okay, so now you get a little bit better idea where we’re at.
8:17 Okay, so here we are on the live version of that spreadsheet.
8:22 So we see again here, item number, session, revision, topic,
8:25 recommendation, proposed change, impact, and feedback.
8:31 Okay, so number one was the addition of a safe harbor provision
8:36 to policy.
8:37 The recommended action on that would be to add a safe harbor
8:42 provision for types of contraband that were brought into our
8:47 schools,
8:48 excluding firearms or drugs, so let’s say if a student
8:52 accidentally brought a pocket knife over the weekend and turned
8:56 it in to administration before entering into school grounds or
9:00 through open gate,
9:02 they would not be receiving the disciplinary action as it be if
9:06 we search them, let’s say, on second or third period, and they
9:10 found it.
9:10 That would result in a disciplinary action.
9:14 Hang on just a second.
9:16 Sorry, I’m trying to find artifact three for the very first one
9:18 that we’re talking about, and I’m like, I don’t…
9:21 Is it paper, it’s paper cooked behind another one, do you don’t
9:23 have that one?
9:23 No, I don’t think so.
9:24 Do you have the other two?
9:25 I mean, let’s…
9:27 It was behind…
9:28 Bear with me for one second, because I…
9:30 Yeah, machines have mine.
9:32 I’m familiar with it.
9:33 All right, I don’t…
9:33 Yep, I’m missing that, sir.
9:34 Okay.
9:35 Thank you.
9:36 So artifact three that you guys have is just a proposed draft of
9:41 a current policy for weapons, which is 5772.
9:45 It would have the additional language embedded in there,
9:49 describing what that would look like if we were to implement a
9:53 safe harbor provision into our schools.
9:55 The impact on our schools would simply be updating that policy
9:59 and then training staff and administrators on process and
10:03 procedures and updating any pertinent documents we have.
10:07 Can I ask you a question on this one?
10:12 Is, I’m wondering if this is the place to put it, or if we can
10:14 put it here in other places, because if, would we, for example,
10:19 for safe harbor, would we include safe devices or something like
10:22 that if they’re voluntary?
10:24 But that wouldn’t fit under a weapons policy, so maybe it would
10:27 fit under search and seizure or something like that.
10:30 I’m just wondering if this is the best location for the safe
10:33 harbor.
10:34 I mean, I don’t have a problem with putting it in multiple
10:36 places.
10:37 Sure.
10:37 But definitely, if we’re going to include other items that might
10:41 not be considered weapons, might be good to put it somewhere
10:44 else, too.
10:45 I understand.
10:46 So maybe the recommendation of adding it to policy 5771 for
10:51 search and seizure as well?
10:53 Right.
10:54 Or in lieu of.
10:55 That one, did you just give that one to us?
10:58 Or did you just know that number off the top of your head?
11:03 Guilty of just knowing it off the top of my head.
11:04 But yeah, that is the one that would embed any type of search
11:11 action, the do’s and don’ts.
11:14 So we can definitely look at doing that.
11:17 I think that’s smarter to do rather than trying to figure out
11:19 which policies have touched, because this safe harbor might
11:21 exist to several different policies.
11:23 Right.
11:23 So you might want to consider just a standalone policy of safe
11:27 harbor provision that would cover multiple issues, items, if you
11:31 don’t.
11:32 Like right now, it’s just in weapons.
11:33 So if you send it to me, I’d say it applies to the weapons
11:36 policy.
11:36 Right.
11:36 Not necessarily other policies.
11:38 But if the board’s will is to have it apply to vape devices, if
11:42 you have someone who’s old enough to have one,
11:44 but it’s contraband on our campus says, hey, wait a minute, and
11:48 they want to turn it in.
11:49 Well, can I also put another scenario?
11:52 So maybe it doesn’t need to go in.
11:53 I mean, maybe even search and seizure.
11:55 I like that idea better, because search and seizure means we’re
11:57 already in the process of investigating it.
11:59 And it would not qualify under the provision.
12:01 Right.
12:01 And it wouldn’t qualify.
12:02 Could we potentially have it?
12:03 Would this cover scenarios of, let’s say, you know, you’ve got a
12:07 young student who is accused of,
12:09 or someone’s missing a phone, and the student, you know, admits
12:12 and turns it in.
12:13 Are we going to Safe Harbor?
12:14 It seems like that would cover situations like that.
12:16 Anything that we might be looking for that you’re not supposed
12:19 to have,
12:19 that you let us know you have before we figure out you have it,
12:22 right?
12:22 That’s the idea of Safe Harbor.
12:23 Well, the Safe Harbor, not necessarily that one.
12:26 If they’re looking for a phone, they’re investigating, and under
12:29 the language that they proposed,
12:31 it’s already been initiated.
12:33 So they’re looking for it.
12:34 So you would be disciplined for taking the item.
12:36 Right.
12:36 So it would not cover that.
12:37 This is, I was fishing, and I had a knife in my bag, so I
12:42 brought it to school, and I forgot.
12:45 So when I get there, I check my bag before walking through OpenGate
12:49 and say, hey, I’ve got this.
12:50 So you go talk to the principal or the assistant principal and
12:53 say, hey, I need to turn this in,
12:55 because I had it from my fishing when I went after school on
12:57 Friday.
12:57 Or my parents irresponsibly bought me a vape, and when I got to
13:01 school, I realized I shouldn’t have it,
13:02 so I handed it to the first responsible adult that I run into,
13:05 just throwing that one out there.
13:06 He puts it in a student’s backpack, and they open their backpack
13:08 up, and they’re like, this isn’t mine.
13:10 An adult borrows the backpack, or an older sibling borrows their
13:13 backpack to go somewhere and leave something in their bag.
13:16 So you can think of lots of things.
13:17 Yeah, I mean, there’s some rabbit holes you can jump in.
13:20 I think part of what we had in the proposed policy edition was
13:25 it would have to happen prior to them entering OpenGate.
13:30 Right.
13:30 Which at this time, obviously, we don’t have in our elementary
13:34 and middle schools, but the idea that if that was ever
13:37 implemented.
13:38 But yeah, the idea is that when you first get on campus, not
13:41 third period, I said, oops, like, yeah.
13:44 Right.
13:45 Unless you have a scenario, which we have had before, where
13:47 people find stuff, I mean, you know, the earlier the better.
13:50 We want to encourage reporting, right, is what we’re trying to
13:52 do with this safe harbor policy.
13:54 So I think a standalone policy would probably be best because it
13:59 seems like it would be the broadest application.
14:06 And we can probably use a lot of the language we actually were
14:09 proposing for 5771 and just carry that on over to its standalone
14:16 policy.
14:18 I agree.
14:19 I think that’s easier than trying to touch every single policy
14:20 where safe harbor might exist because that would be a lot more
14:22 work.
14:23 Okay.
14:24 Would this have to go back before the discipline committee to no?
14:27 Okay.
14:28 So we don’t have to do that.
14:29 All right.
14:30 Just making sure.
14:31 We’re still doing it.
14:32 We’re just deciding where to put it.
14:33 Right.
14:34 Okay.
14:35 Yeah.
14:36 It would just be us moving it around.
14:37 Okay.
14:38 All right.
14:39 Good.
14:40 Okay.
14:41 And as you can see, we’re capturing that right there on the
14:42 feedback.
14:43 All right.
14:44 So the next one, the next one’s a little bit more
14:46 straightforward.
14:47 This is item two brought up in session one.
14:50 This is an existing student behavior we’ve had.
14:56 And this came up, I believe, last year, too, about looking to
14:59 have a little bit more clarity into it, wanting to kind of
15:03 really pinpoint a little bit better.
15:05 The district work group felt it was a little vague in its
15:08 inception.
15:10 It used to say chemical sprays use the unsafe use of any spray
15:14 or aerosol item and a failure to follow school procedures
15:17 related to such sprays.
15:19 The proposed change would keep the same student behavior name of
15:23 chemical spray misuse, but would be changed to the intentional
15:27 unsafe use of any spray or aerosol in a way that has a negative
15:31 or adverse effect on others or disrupts the learning environment.
15:35 The core team believed this would be an easy change for us to
15:38 make, and this would just be a simple change in our student code
15:44 of conduct and the glossary for the definitions.
15:49 Justin.
15:50 Yeah.
15:51 Is the intention to have it intentional and unsafe or
15:54 intentional or unsafe?
15:56 I would recommend just sticking which one you want in there.
16:00 Okay.
16:01 Because it’s unclear.
16:02 Not an and or, you think?
16:04 Then you’re questioning, is it required to have both an
16:08 intentional and unsafe or just intentional or just unsafe?
16:14 Well, it’s a safe use of spray.
16:15 I think the addition is intentional because, you know.
16:20 So if I intentionally and unsafely use an aerosol.
16:24 Hairspray.
16:25 Right.
16:26 Yeah.
16:27 If I intentionally use the hairspray, but not in an unsafe way,
16:30 but it disrupts.
16:31 Yeah.
16:32 It wouldn’t fall under.
16:33 If both are required.
16:34 If only one’s required, I intentionally use the hairspray and it
16:36 causes this problem.
16:38 You could end up in it.
16:39 Am I getting disciplined for that?
16:41 That’s why I’m saying, is it safe?
16:43 Yeah.
16:44 Is it intentional and unsafe or just one or the other?
16:47 Yeah.
16:48 That’ll make a difference in how it gets applied.
16:51 Yeah.
16:52 We can change that.
16:53 We can do it for an intentional use or unsafe.
16:56 The intention.
16:57 So you’re, you’re suggesting that if we don’t need, is unsafe
17:01 redundant because they’ve added
17:03 the language of negative or adverse effect?
17:05 It could be.
17:06 It might be using it in a safe way, but it’s with the intent of
17:10 adversely affecting someone.
17:12 So he’s just saying the word unsafe and it clears it up.
17:15 I mean, I don’t have any problem with the rest of it.
17:17 It’s just, I would clarify whether you want it to be both
17:19 intentional and unsafe or you
17:21 could remove unsafe, but if it has the negative consequences,
17:24 there is going to be the key
17:26 for discipline purposes other than it could be intentional or
17:29 unintentional depending on
17:31 how you define those two things.
17:33 Okay.
17:34 Those two things.
17:35 So if we’re ingredients, we can go ahead and remove the language
17:38 of unsafe and keep the
17:40 intentional use of any spray aerosol in a way that has a
17:43 negative or adverse effect on
17:45 others or disrupts the learning environment.
17:47 I agree.
17:48 I think that’s the cleanest.
17:49 Okay.
17:50 I’m trying to think of an intentional safe way that does that.
17:55 It could come up with the hairspray thing is like if someone
17:58 uses it, they have an extreme
18:00 allergy.
18:01 It could have adverse impacts on the classroom or other students,
18:04 but it was used in a safe
18:05 way.
18:06 So it could be an unintentional thing, whereas it’s intentional
18:10 and unsafe both.
18:12 So.
18:13 Yeah.
18:14 It really comes, what we hear a lot is like the Axe body spray
18:17 and the perfumes.
18:18 That’s what I was going to go to.
18:19 It’s not the idea of someone spraying it directly in someone’s
18:23 face.
18:24 It’s the idea of that someone that would have an allergic
18:26 reaction to it, or they know that
18:29 someone in that classroom has existing allergies and they’re
18:31 doing it intentionally to cause
18:34 a disruption or an adverse impact.
18:36 I’m good about that.
18:37 That changed.
18:38 Okay.
18:39 All right.
18:40 We have two attorneys on the board.
18:42 So item three brought up in session one.
18:45 Again, it’s just a quick revision.
18:47 This is a corrective strategy or corrective action.
18:50 It’s an existing one already reassigned bus seating.
18:54 We noticed that in the code of conduct that it was a level one
18:57 corrective action, but your
19:00 first actual bus violation starts in level two.
19:03 So it was just us correcting something that needed to be
19:07 corrected anyway.
19:09 So all we’re doing is moving the reassigned bus seat from a
19:12 level one corrective strategy
19:14 to a level two, since that’s the first time where you see a bus
19:17 infraction minor is in level
19:19 two.
19:20 And the impact would just be updating the code of conduct and
19:23 updating the levels in there.
19:27 It wouldn’t change out any other rollout.
19:32 Okay.
19:33 So the next one is indecent misconduct.
19:40 That is one that’s currently there.
19:42 It’s a student behavior number 47 of 138.
19:47 Considering a name change to indecent exposure instead of indecent
19:53 misconduct.
19:55 So as you can see, you see the crossed out struck through of
19:58 what indecent misconduct is currently.
20:01 A student exposing or showing his or her private body parts in a
20:04 manner that is not lewd or lascivious.
20:07 And there is no proof the student had a conscious sexual intent.
20:10 Currently this resides just in our elementary code of student
20:14 conduct.
20:15 The idea would be to change that language to align better with
20:19 indecent exposure of self or others.
20:22 The little pound signs next to it, that’s where we would enter a
20:25 new student code there.
20:29 A student through the intentional action accidentally exposes
20:33 their own or another person’s undergarments
20:35 or body parts that are typically covered by clothing.
20:39 So, again, it’s just changing what was initially there but
20:44 making the actual name of the incident a little bit more clear.
20:49 This would just be us changing it in the code of student conduct
20:53 and updating pertinent documents affecting it.
20:56 Okay, number five.
21:06 It was brought up in session two.
21:08 Again, it’s a revision of our out of assigned area minor, which
21:11 is 040.
21:13 The group wanted to see additional options that didn’t just
21:18 include in-school suspension.
21:21 There was also a recommendation to remove safety plan from a
21:24 level two offense and the guidelines.
21:27 So, if you can see on your artifact one, we have went ahead and
21:31 changed that.
21:33 So, the BPS core team removed safety plan as a required corrective
21:36 action.
21:37 And we’ve also added out of school suspension as an additional
21:41 option for the third offense.
21:43 Really aimed at schools that do not have an in-school suspension.
21:46 They would also have the option for an out of school suspension
21:50 if they deemed that appropriate.
21:53 Mr. Chair.
21:55 Yes, go ahead.
21:58 Just on the next two, this one and the next one, I think that we
22:01 should give some consideration in making it separate,
22:05 a separate policy for elementary versus secondary.
22:09 Just because, you know, a second or third grader being out of
22:14 area is probably a little different than,
22:16 or out of an assigned area is a little different than an 11th
22:20 grader.
22:21 So, I think we should give some consideration of giving some of
22:24 the principals some discretion,
22:26 the elementary school principals some discretion in that area.
22:30 Okay.
22:33 They do have, so we’re moving, so this is the third offense,
22:41 right?
22:42 So, they do have, so first offense is, could just be, we’re
22:45 going to reach out to your parents, right?
22:47 The second one could be that this is, this is a list of options.
22:52 It’s not, we’re doing all the things, right?
22:54 In, in the guidelines, those are supposed to be required actions.
22:58 Okay.
22:59 So, on the first offense, they would have the detention and the
23:01 parent contact.
23:02 Yes.
23:03 Okay.
23:04 The options are in-school suspension or alternative classroom
23:07 location.
23:08 Correct.
23:09 For those schools that wouldn’t have an in-school suspension,
23:11 that they would still be able to place that student in a
23:13 location,
23:14 not in like, per se, another classroom of students, but
23:17 somewhere where they would be monitored by an adult and
23:20 beginning their work.
23:21 Right.
23:22 Which a lot of times is like a fourth grader going down to a
23:23 second grade class or whatever, and they’re in the corner, or
23:26 maybe the counselor’s office.
23:27 Or the, or the, yeah, the front office or like, you know,
23:28 something like that.
23:29 Right.
23:30 Okay.
23:31 Um, so what’s your recommendation?
23:38 Just to, before we put somebody on the, on the ladder, moving
23:42 them up, I just think that the principal should have a little
23:46 more discretion than maybe in the, in the secondary years.
23:48 Because obviously they are, but they know the kids well, they
23:52 know whether the kids, uh, kid just is wandering around.
23:56 Cause he has some other issue, uh, personal issue, parent, you
23:58 know, family issue.
24:00 Maybe, I mean, I’m just saying there could be a lot of factors
24:02 that come into that just to give the principal some discretion
24:05 because some principals, we want all the principals to adhere to
24:09 the letter of the law.
24:10 But in this case, I don’t, I think that there’s principals I’ve
24:13 spoken to principals, wish they had a little more discretion.
24:16 So they didn’t, cause they know the family circumstances or what
24:18 have you that might, you know, without putting the, putting the
24:22 kid into immediate, you know, on the ladder and getting them in
24:24 trouble.
24:25 Right.
24:26 They have a runner.
24:27 Right.
24:28 We have, we have, that’s why we have some of our, but take
24:30 behavior techs in every school to deal with some of those kinds
24:32 of problems when you have people who are, or runners, um, to use
24:35 the elementary verbiage.
24:37 Uh, you know, of course, if they’re ESC, there’s, um, there’s
24:39 some discretion.
24:41 I mean, I, I, I guess I would like to hear from our, um, you
24:44 know, like from administrators, how much flexibility do they
24:48 feel like they have with a student who might be dealing with
24:53 traumatic things or, or, um, you know,
24:57 you know, I don’t know.
24:58 I mean, I, I’m just wondering, do we need to, is it worth making
25:00 the change to this if they feel like they already have
25:03 flexibility for those extraneous circumstances?
25:06 I’m seeing Pam Shanker head.
25:07 We did, we did have administrators on this committee that gave
25:12 feedback there were, that’s why we made some changes.
25:16 And they were looking at it from an administrative lens, and
25:18 some of them came with, uh, the intention of giving feedback
25:22 that their hands were tied.
25:24 So this was the only suggestion that they came up with as far as
25:28 with the out-of-assigned area minor.
25:31 Since it’s a minor, they have options, and it’s an improgression.
25:35 Okay.
25:37 So the options are built in.
25:38 All right.
25:39 For the, for the latter, but not for whether they even get in
25:41 the first offense, there’s
25:43 not an option, whether they, there’s not much of an option for
25:46 discretion for the principal
25:48 in the first offense, if I’m understanding it correctly.
25:50 I believe that the first one, if I’m not mistaken, it’s a, it’s
25:54 a detention.
25:56 Right.
25:57 And my point is, is that it may not require detention the first
26:00 time.
26:01 I mean, this should be just given the principals and elementary
26:04 school principals some discretion.
26:07 That we had committee members really want us to be consistent
26:13 across the district.
26:16 Uh, we did add some ranges for some of them, but for this one,
26:20 they felt very strongly about
26:22 keeping it the one day, cause this is like a minor three days.
26:26 So you would have intervened hopefully before you’ve gotten to
26:29 that three days, um, in, in,
26:32 in school.
26:33 I think we’re, Mr. Thomas is getting to is did, do they have to
26:37 report it at all?
26:39 I mean, do they have to, because the discipline is if it gets
26:41 reported.
26:42 Right.
26:43 I mean, could there be a scenario where a principal, there’s a,
26:45 there’s a tremendous amount of
26:46 dramatic situation happening and a kid ran out of class upset,
26:48 whatever.
26:49 Do they have to immediately go in here and report and put them
26:51 in down and focus a 040?
26:54 I don’t.
26:55 No, but my, my point is where that’s a mixed message of the
26:57 principals too, because we tell
26:59 them that we want them to enforce the policies.
27:01 At least we tell the superintendent, we want the principals to
27:03 enforce the policies that are,
27:05 that we enact.
27:06 I don’t want to create a, have a policy that we say, okay, but
27:10 you don’t always have to enforce
27:11 it.
27:12 But I’d rather, I’d rather at least have the kids say they have
27:14 discretion because I know
27:16 I’ve spoken one principal in particular, I can recall the
27:18 conversation saying, I’m a rule
27:21 follower.
27:22 And if it says, this is what I have to do, I have to do, even if
27:23 I don’t think it’s, you
27:24 know, even if I don’t agree with it.
27:25 And I can tell you that’s why we did as a district added some,
27:29 and you have in your packet, some
27:32 yellow, the yellow codes, those were district codes because some
27:35 of the principals really
27:37 felt like their hands were tied.
27:39 We have willful disobedience.
27:40 We have a plethora of, you know, consequences that we can give
27:45 kids that fall up under here,
27:48 up under this section.
27:51 I think when we get to either, we’re going to do the one through
27:53 three, or we’re going
27:55 to do three days, two days.
27:57 I’m hearing it both ways.
27:58 I have some people who want the one through three.
28:01 Then I have one, some that three, then I have committed
28:03 community members that want just
28:06 the three.
28:07 We just need direction quick.
28:09 Cause some of these, we do have one day or three days.
28:12 And that happened last year.
28:13 Some of the board members wanted us to change some of these to
28:16 three days.
28:17 And then we have some areas that we have like one to three days
28:19 or three to five days.
28:21 So we just need to, you know, decide.
28:27 My comment, you know, apologize.
28:30 It’s not about the, this, you know, about the third offense, but
28:32 it’s about the out of
28:33 the sign area.
28:34 That’s where I’m, you know, it’s more throwing it, injecting a
28:36 little opinion on doing something.
28:38 And so it, you know, give the, add something to this policy that
28:40 gives them a little flexibility
28:42 before they get to level one.
28:44 Okay.
28:45 I think where I fall on this is remembering a couple of years
28:49 ago when we first started,
28:50 you know, revising the student code of conduct, particularly
28:55 around this area, is the, there
28:59 was, we had a term for it.
29:01 What was the term?
29:02 When students, eloping, students eloping from campus or, you
29:05 know, whether it was inside
29:07 the boundaries of the campus or even off campus was, was
29:10 becoming a significant problem.
29:12 And when students are out of area, it, it could be just a kid
29:17 wandering around and, hey,
29:17 what are you doing out of class?
29:18 But it also can be situations where administrators are now
29:20 having to be off task.
29:23 Instead of doing what they’re supposed to be doing, those
29:25 teachers, administrators, whatever,
29:26 are now chasing kids across campus.
29:28 And so I certainly think that that’s a repeated thing, that they’re,
29:33 part of their goal is going
29:34 to be to make sure they get with a behavior tag or we have that
29:36 support to make sure that student
29:38 understands the expectations and that they, they know they can’t
29:41 do it.
29:42 And, and if it’s a scenario where someone is, you know, they’re
29:45 a student with autism
29:46 or some other behavior that some, that frequently has, you know,
29:49 outbursts or whatever,
29:50 that’s going to be an ESE student that those kind of
29:53 consequences are going to be addressed
29:55 within their IEP and would not be necessarily something that
29:59 would be following these guidelines.
30:01 So I’m, I’m okay with it as it is, the changes, you know, I, if
30:08 a school doesn’t have an ISS,
30:09 it’s really hard for our elementary schools because then you
30:12 basically have a clerk, a secretary,
30:14 a counselor or an AP who can’t do anything the rest of the day
30:17 because they have to have that school,
30:19 you know, that student in the office, you know, and they’re with
30:22 a school that only has one AP.
30:24 It’s really hard for them to do.
30:26 So as much as I don’t want to put kids out of school suspension
30:28 and in school suspension is,
30:30 is almost undoable in most of our elementary schools.
30:37 And with that first option of out of assigned area, it, it would
30:41 not be exclusionary.
30:42 It would just be an extended detention or lunch detention.
30:45 So at that point we wouldn’t be burdening the schools to say,
30:49 you now have to put Johnny up in the front office.
30:51 It could just be a simple lunch detention or an extended
30:54 detention maybe during a different time of the day.
30:57 And this, you know, best practice is always to call that parent
31:00 and contact them in any type of incident that we see on campus.
31:03 Because we want to partner with the parents.
31:07 Sorry, I’m trying to pull up the student code of conduct just to
31:13 look at.
31:14 You’ve got a copyright.
31:15 No, I know, but I’m trying to look at the differentiation
31:17 between elementary and secondary.
31:20 Cause that’s where this started was you wanted it to be
31:22 separated because it is very different for our elementary kids
31:26 versus if it’s not, I guess.
31:37 All right.
31:38 So Ms. Campbell, you’re okay with keeping it the way that it is.
31:40 John, you prefer to separate having.
31:42 Well, the only other thing that, you know, considering that we’ve
31:46 made the change a couple of years ago and the board was like
31:48 moving everything up.
31:49 Let’s move ones to twos and twos to threes.
31:51 We want to get, we want to take this, you know, be tough on
31:53 crime and kind of thing.
31:54 I mean, if, if we’re, if you did, if the committee or the staff
31:58 didn’t, was not willing to make those changes,
32:01 if that was brought forward from the committee and, but you guys
32:03 told them, well, no, the board wanted this.
32:05 And so then, then I want to hear that feedback because if we
32:08 need to pull some of these elementary school down,
32:10 elementary school things down from a level two, and I’m talking
32:13 about these charts now, back down a ways,
32:17 because that’s what the problem is, then, then tell us, I don’t,
32:21 because the board said two years ago,
32:22 and now we need to know what the consequences are, what the
32:24 feedback is.
32:25 Please give that to us because if that’s what we need to do, I’m
32:28 open to that.
32:29 Mr. Chair.
32:30 You’re open to making it softer.
32:31 Is that what you’re saying?
32:32 Hold on a minute.
32:33 I’m open to going back to differentiating between elementary and
32:37 secondary.
32:37 And I’m off, and I, just to clarify, I’m not, you know, being
32:39 tough on crime, as you put it, as I’m all for it.
32:42 If I just want to give the principal the discretion in
32:44 elementary school to recognize whether this is a crime,
32:49 if it’s a, you know, intentional violation of the rule, or is
32:52 there some other extenuating circumstance?
32:54 Maybe it’s a, you know, just give them some, a little
32:56 flexibility.
32:58 That was all just because the age group that we’re dealing with,
33:01 obviously the mindset of an elementary school kid,
33:03 especially early elementary, is much different than in the
33:05 secondary.
33:06 So I just thought it was, you know, it’s been brought up to my
33:08 attention.
33:09 I thought it made sense.
33:10 And I have comments on the next issue as well, or the next item.
33:13 So, but I’ll leave it at that and leave it up to the board.
33:16 But I believe Ms. Dampier even mentioned, I mean, or maybe it
33:20 was Justin, is if the principal or the admin at that time,
33:28 you know, decides if they’re going to pursue it.
33:32 I mean, that’s the principal knowing their student.
33:36 If it’s an innocent wandering off, that principal is going to
33:42 know it.
33:43 They’re not going to, I don’t know.
33:45 But they don’t have a discretion right now.
33:46 I don’t know what the principal is going to say.
33:48 I know you turn left instead of right, but the book says I have
33:51 to do something.
33:53 I’ve yet to meet one of those principals.
33:55 I mean, they live in the gray all day long.
33:57 And so that’s the discretion.
34:00 And, you know, we may not have that same discretion at the high
34:02 school when they’ve been to that school for three years
34:05 and they’re almost an adult.
34:06 They know they’re in the wrong area.
34:07 I agree.
34:08 I’m out.
34:09 But, you know, our principals aren’t wearing body cams.
34:12 We’re not going to hold them to it.
34:14 They’re going to make that call.
34:16 And I think they do that every day.
34:18 So I’m good with leaving it the way it is.
34:23 So we see a lot of times with, I have not had a lot of pushback
34:28 on asking for things to be lowered.
34:32 In my experience, a lot of times in my office, they’re not
34:35 calling usually on what’s called lower level ones like ones and
34:39 twos.
34:39 However, the feedback we got seemed to be this was a compromise
34:44 that the DDWG was willing to make and seemed to be where they
34:50 were at when we ended on the third session.
34:52 So this is just our point of view based on our partnership with
34:56 the DDWG.
34:57 This is where we ended with this.
34:59 I think it’s a good choice.
35:01 And I want to correct myself.
35:02 I just was looking at the definitions.
35:04 What I describe as staff members going and chasing kids across
35:06 campus is actually out of assigned area major.
35:09 This is just minor where they find someone wandering around
35:12 campus.
35:13 But still, or not necessarily wandering around campus, but a
35:15 student gets up and walks out of a class, which is very unsafe.
35:19 Yeah.
35:20 And our terminology about assigned area really could include you
35:23 taking that extra lunch or you skipping third period or you just
35:27 being somewhere where you know you’re not supposed to be is why
35:31 it’s kind of like kind of call that some other districts might
35:34 just call something just skipping a skipping.
35:36 Here, it’s just kind of encompasses one thing in order to kind
35:39 of encapsulate it all.
35:41 Right.
35:42 Intentional.
35:43 Yeah.
35:44 I’m fine with leaving it as is.
35:45 Yeah.
35:46 I’m fine with leaving it as is.
35:47 I don’t see a major.
35:48 All right.
35:49 Next one.
35:50 Okay.
35:51 Number six.
35:54 Physical aggression.
35:56 There was a, I will say this is one if I do hear any coming from
36:01 school leadership where initially when we rolled out the
36:05 guidelines last year, how we had it was is that it was a day of,
36:12 I believe it was an in school suspension day or the equivalent
36:15 as the first day.
36:15 Uh, infractional consequence or corrective action.
36:20 Um, in schools we’re seeing that as a discrepancy.
36:23 Uh, if you remember before we used to have a fighting noncessor
36:26 code and we have our assessor fighting.
36:29 The idea last year is that we dropped fighting noncessor and
36:32 combined it with physical aggression and changed it to basically
36:35 say either it’s mutual or non mutual.
36:38 You’re still making contact with another student, um, where the
36:42 DDWG and some of the principals I spoke to, they felt like if
36:47 you look at our inciting one previous inciting does not mean
36:51 that there’s any contact.
36:53 You’re just egging on that fight, you’re doing something to kind
36:55 of entice the other person to do something bad.
36:58 That one resulted in, uh, potential, um, out of school
37:01 suspension, but the actual physical con, uh, connection of two
37:05 kids fighting did not.
37:07 Um, so the idea was to try to align the two a little bit more.
37:11 So that’s why in physical aggression, it still gives them the
37:14 option to do an ISS or equivalent, but also gives them the
37:18 flexibility.
37:19 If they would choose to do so to do an out of school suspension
37:22 instead based on the severity of that incident.
37:26 Whether it be a one sided with someone just striking a kid,
37:31 maybe in something that didn’t rise to the level of, uh, of
37:34 assessor content, but still was a little bit above maybe a horseplay
37:37 or something.
37:38 Mr. Chair.
37:41 Yes, sir.
37:42 Not to be the, uh, disruptor here, but, um, that came up to me
37:46 again as well from, uh, principals.
37:49 And that was the, uh, cause a lot in elementary school, it can
37:52 be, if it’s one thing, if it’s bullying or something that’s
37:55 intentional, somebody’s trying to actually fight somebody, but
37:58 it’s a lot of times it is horseplay.
38:01 It could be a two friends in a soccer match or, you know, during
38:04 PE and they get a little, uh, heated and, you know, a little,
38:08 they get, you know, push each other.
38:11 And next thing you know, they, you know, they both are in
38:13 trouble and then they have the stay away contract.
38:15 And my understanding, once again, it’s just, you know, limited
38:18 understanding, but those stay away contracts are very hard.
38:22 You know, the, the school ends up having the print, the
38:24 administration has to monitor trying to keep all these different
38:26 kids away from each other and these different stay away
38:29 contracts.
38:30 So once again, just giving the, a little flexibility of the
38:33 principal, um, on the, on the, at the elementary level is what I’m,
38:38 I would suggest considering.
38:40 That would be like considered horseplay is what I would think
38:42 when you’re saying that.
38:44 I mean, that’s what that sounds like in the elementary.
38:46 Once again, it’s like if the principal is following the letter
38:49 of the law and that’s, uh, then it’s.
38:51 But maybe that, well, some of what you’re talking about sounds
38:53 like a misapplied definition because we’ve got, and we even, by
38:56 the way, these are separated.
38:57 Right.
38:58 Pre K through second is a separate, separate number is third
39:00 through 12.
39:02 Um, cause I think on the, the discipline, uh, things have
39:05 different options, but it’s specifically individual
39:08 participating in a mutual or non mutual and or aggressive
39:11 physical contact.
39:12 So like a, an angry chef would be my thought, not horseplay, uh,
39:18 with aggressive intent within the definition towards another
39:19 student resulting in no injury.
39:23 So it doesn’t rise to the level of fight, but it’s more than
39:26 horseplay.
39:27 So I, if that might be a misapplied definition because we have
39:29 all that in there.
39:31 Well, I’m, and I’m being misapplied the way I articulated it as
39:34 well.
39:35 But I mean, as far as it, it may not be horseplay, but it may be,
39:39 it was, there was a set, the circumstance was brought to my
39:41 attention.
39:42 This is a true example that two best friends were playing
39:44 basketball in the elementary school.
39:47 This was used as an example to show what the principal was
39:49 trying to tell me.
39:50 The two best friends were playing basketball in a, and, and got
39:52 into it a little bit.
39:54 I guess they pushed each other.
39:55 The next thing you know, they have a stay away contract and the
39:57 parents are saying, we don’t want to have a stay away contract.
39:59 They’re like best friends.
40:00 It’s an elementary school.
40:02 It’s, it was just a little, that was one example of just why
40:05 there should have been, and this principal was going to follow
40:08 the rules, obviously.
40:10 So they don’t, you know, we’ve just given that, giving
40:13 principals a little flexibility so they don’t have to make that
40:16 determination.
40:17 They can choose to make that determination.
40:19 I see.
40:20 I, if I may, so when we look at horseplay, I would, Mr. Thomas,
40:26 I would almost think that if a principal is looking at, let’s
40:31 say, distinguishing between a physical aggression and horseplay,
40:34 taking in those considerations and factors, a horseplay being a
40:37 level one, they would not have to follow the progressionary
40:41 guideline,
40:42 but still be able to provide a corrective strategy.
40:45 It would not tie their hands into a stay away contract, but they’d
40:48 still be able to, you know, elicit a disciplinary consequence
40:52 might be the action.
40:53 I know sometimes there’s variables when it comes to a thousand
40:55 different ways.
40:57 And I don’t mean to say that that’s the 100% solution, but
41:01 currently right now we have 94 codes.
41:05 So we do provide a plethora of different options for our
41:08 administrators to look at.
41:10 And we do try to make them broad enough, because we feel, if we
41:15 start making concise, we’ll be at 150 codes.
41:18 And we just want to make sure that we’re trying to just provide
41:20 them as much tools in their toolbox.
41:22 So horseplay might be an option for that one, sir.
41:25 It might not be.
41:27 Just kind of a thought of mine.
41:29 I appreciate that.
41:30 And my only, like I said, I support these changes.
41:33 My only addition would be just, you know, having the board’s
41:37 consideration to give a little flexibility to elementary school
41:40 principals.
41:41 See, and where you’re saying flexibility, I’m the exact opposite.
41:44 I’m going to say it.
41:45 And I’ve said it before.
41:46 I – because I think this is what leads to inconsistencies.
41:49 And it ends up with, I think, a lot of our risk ratio.
41:52 Having a plethora of options for an offense that’s committed, it’s
41:55 like, well, wait a minute.
41:57 So you can have, you know, you can have an offense committed.
42:00 It’s a level one.
42:01 And then you go over to what can I do for discipline?
42:03 Well, it can be everything from I can call your parent to I can
42:05 suspend you.
42:06 Or I’m using – I’m paraphrasing – maybe level two, but not
42:09 level one.
42:10 So I’m like, this is where I think the inconsistency leads to
42:13 confusion.
42:14 Because like you said with your teacher situation or your
42:16 principal, maybe she’s miscoding it.
42:19 I mean, it’s something where you’re like, okay, this is – but I
42:22 know that’s a huge undertaking.
42:23 So just for the record, I’ve said it multiple times.
42:25 I would love to see us look at some of the other districts that
42:28 line item list the offense and the consequence.
42:32 So there’s like no room to wiggle there, and it’s very clear.
42:35 And that’s a clear expectation, which will lead to clear results,
42:38 right?
42:39 Maybe.
42:41 With that, if we’re moving towards that, we just need direction
42:44 because it will take a big undertaking.
42:46 Oh, I know.
42:47 Which we can do.
42:48 But I just need direction as to is that where we’re going.
42:52 We currently have about 10 or 15 that are in our book that’s
42:57 leveled in order to do the whole book.
43:00 And I know some community members as well as some board members
43:02 have expressed that they would like to see us move to a total
43:06 level system, which in some cases will tie hands because it says
43:11 this.
43:12 So we just need to know are we moving in that direction for next
43:16 year, not for 26-27, but for 27-28 because it will take a year
43:21 of us to get it right and having the committee.
43:25 So we just need direction on whether or not we’re moving in that
43:28 direction.
43:29 You’ve had committee members express interest in something like
43:32 this as well?
43:33 Community, yes.
43:34 Oh, community.
43:35 Sorry.
43:36 Okay.
43:37 Yes, community.
43:38 Individuals.
43:39 I think that’s a good idea.
44:09 So I mean, I think we’re about to give Pam Jampere a heart
44:14 attack.
44:15 Let’s not do that.
44:16 She does a good job.
44:18 So let’s let’s we want to keep her.
44:20 So I wanted to look at the stay away contract.
44:24 There’s nothing that I see that defines how long it can be.
44:28 So a principal could say for the next three days, you guys, you
44:32 know, they or they could say,
44:35 OK, you’ve been good and now we’re going to I mean, I’m not
44:37 saying anything that would prove that puts a prescribed amount
44:41 of time for it.
44:43 Because I even had the hypothetical.
44:45 I’m like, what if you have a brother and sister, which is
44:47 totally likely to happen, having some physical aggression on a
44:51 school campus?
44:52 How are you going to have a stay away contract for that?
44:54 But I mean, it didn’t you know, it’s in there.
44:56 You got to do it.
44:57 But it’s got to be within reason.
44:59 I think this is the change that we’re being asked to look at is
45:02 to make it consistent with inciting.
45:04 I certainly don’t want someone who’s actually the one.
45:08 We don’t want the inciting to happen.
45:09 We don’t want the person who’s actually doing the aggressive
45:11 behavior to get less discipline than the one who’s inciting it.
45:14 So I think this is helpful to be consistent.
45:17 And considering the flexibility that principals have with the
45:21 stay away contract, I think it’s a good idea to put it where it
45:25 is.
45:26 So the direction.
45:27 Oh, sorry.
45:28 No, no, no.
45:29 How do you guys feel?
45:30 Is the direction to go ahead and move forward with the
45:36 recommended change?
45:39 I think there’s enough consensus.
45:41 Yeah.
45:43 Hey, Justin, if we may, there’s a bunch of these, right?
45:45 And I just need to know because we’re going at a pretty slow
45:48 pace and I’m okay with that.
45:50 Should I order lunch for everybody and go through this one by
45:53 time?
45:54 Or just take a 30-minute break and go get something across the
45:57 way.
45:58 So you guys want to go line by line all the way through this?
46:02 No.
46:03 Is there any way we go faster on that?
46:04 I just, what I was saying is I thought we –
46:05 We only have two more, right?
46:07 So I will say, so with the recommended changes, I believe there’s
46:12 15 one, number six.
46:14 15 total.
46:15 So the green are the ones that are coming from the DDWG, the
46:18 work group.
46:20 The yellow are the ones that would have been from a district or
46:23 board member discretion.
46:25 So, yeah, we’re a little wonder halfway through.
46:28 So speaking to Ms. Pam, and she said that if you guys wanted to
46:30 look at it, make any recommendations,
46:32 we can go line by line.
46:33 It’s whatever you guys want to do.
46:35 I just didn’t know if we needed to – we’ve got a lot more to go.
46:38 You know what I mean?
46:39 I just wanted to know about lunch.
46:40 I’m okay with saying, hey, if you guys –
46:42 Mr. Susan, give me the lunch break?
46:43 No.
46:44 Can we go, like, 20 more minutes and then take a lunch break?
46:46 At 12:30?
46:47 We should be able to get through the 15.
46:48 Yeah.
46:49 We should be able to get through the 15.
46:50 Okay.
46:51 Let’s do it.
46:52 Mr. Susan, for the record, I don’t anticipate having any more
46:54 comments on the rest of them.
46:55 It’s not that.
46:56 I just need to know if you guys need lunch.
46:58 That’s all.
46:59 I’m here for you guys, whatever you want.
47:00 You will.
47:01 Absolutely.
47:02 I don’t miss meals.
47:03 But if we can go through the Student Code of Conduct part and
47:05 then take a lunch break before
47:07 we do the rest, then that’s a good idea.
47:08 Yeah.
47:09 All right.
47:10 Not to jinx myself.
47:11 I think some of them should be kind of straightforward, moving
47:12 forward.
47:13 I just said M&Ms.
47:14 I’m good.
47:15 We’ll see.
47:16 All right.
47:17 So we’re going to go ahead and move down to number seven.
47:19 So verbal confrontation, again, already existing student
47:23 behavior.
47:25 It was just asked by the committee to be a little bit more
47:28 clarity to it.
47:29 So if you see what’s struck through, it used to say engaging in
47:32 behavior that promotes,
47:34 provokes, promotes, or encourages hostility or disruption.
47:38 They asked was that towards a staff member?
47:40 Is that towards a student?
47:41 We’ve said the idea that’s always towards student.
47:43 If there’s something like this happening to a staff member, that
47:45 would probably be coded
47:46 way differently.
47:47 So all we did was just add the word student or students in front
47:51 of engaging.
47:52 And that would just be us updating the language in the Student
47:54 Code of Conduct.
47:55 Oh, should that – if that was the intent, should it say towards
47:58 other students?
48:00 Because this – if I read it, what I’m looking at is it’s the
48:03 students doing it.
48:04 I don’t know why we would be addressing discipline on staff in
48:07 the Student Code of Conduct.
48:08 But that’s what – to me, that didn’t say – that doesn’t read
48:12 what you were intending.
48:14 Yeah, we can add language that says towards –
48:18 At the risk of being redundant.
48:19 Yeah.
48:20 We can figure out how to wordsmith that.
48:22 So the idea of just adding clarity that this would be student
48:26 towards student when it comes to verbal confrontation.
48:29 Yeah.
48:30 Okay.
48:31 Yeah, we can definitely –
48:32 Or just adding towards other students.
48:33 Towards other students.
48:34 Yeah, at the end.
48:35 Yeah.
48:36 Rather than being at the beginning.
48:37 Okay.
48:38 Now we can make a quick fix on that.
48:39 Oh, well, that’s true.
48:40 That’s true.
48:41 Well, but he said teachers.
48:43 What if it was towards other people?
48:44 It could be a janitor.
48:45 It could be –
48:46 Or a volunteer.
48:47 I don’t know where that goes.
48:48 Yeah, just leave it, I think, the way that it is.
48:50 Because I think it just – it covers the fact that if they
48:52 engage in a behavior that provokes,
48:54 promotes, or encourages hostility –
48:55 What about a school board member?
48:56 No.
48:57 Go to the school and they get a disrespect to –
48:58 Oh, my job.
48:59 Yeah, I think that’s the way it is.
49:00 If you say towards other students, then it –
49:02 I think if it walks a line that it seems to be more than just a
49:05 verbal confrontation,
49:07 and it’s roaming into that threat intimidation, then obviously
49:10 there’s a code that would fit
49:12 that that’s already built in the assessor.
49:13 Absolutely.
49:14 All right.
49:15 We’re good.
49:16 All right.
49:17 So don’t change it.
49:18 Don’t change it.
49:19 Okay.
49:20 All right.
49:21 We’re rolling.
49:22 All right.
49:24 In sessions one and two, this is our tobacco, our TBC code.
49:26 This comes from the state of Florida.
49:28 Yes.
49:29 Initially, the recommendation of the work group was to add
49:32 educational courses in providing
49:34 civil citations.
49:36 Their recommendation was to add some type of educational course
49:40 online in lieu of an ISS,
49:43 and then the second citation would again include an educational
49:47 course in public service.
49:49 Based on our kind of look at that, we believe that adding a
49:53 corrective action of a tobacco
49:57 citation in addition to what we have – so if you look at our
50:01 tobacco right now, you have
50:03 a one to three, then a four to five, then up to a 10-day – we’d
50:06 simply be adding tobacco
50:08 citation as one of the required actions schools must take for
50:13 the first tobacco offense.
50:15 Why take out the public service portion of it?
50:19 I mean, that – is that – my understanding is that what you’re
50:21 going to do is remove that
50:22 part of it or no?
50:24 Because –
50:25 So the tobacco citation, depending on what citation we do, they’re
50:29 – we are working
50:30 with district security and looking what that would look like
50:34 because, yes, the tobacco citation
50:36 can be usually appeased through either a course, through public
50:41 service, and paying the fine,
50:44 and it would actually be paid through the clerk of courts.
50:47 What this was was saying, working with a third party that they
50:52 would have to – and instead
50:54 of them being suspended or an ISS, they would be assigned, you
50:58 have to take this educational
51:00 course, based on the citation.
51:03 So the idea was to – their idea was to basically not have it be
51:07 so punitive, but more of an educational
51:09 type of here are the negative effects of tobacco use and have
51:13 that be a required action.
51:15 What we’re saying is that we would keep how we have it right now
51:18 with the suspensions, we
51:19 would just add that the tobacco citation would be part of the
51:23 required corrective action for
51:25 the first offense.
51:26 Okay.
51:27 And district security weighed in on this.
51:28 This would be issued from the sheriff or the police municipality.
51:30 Is that correct?
51:31 Am I understanding that correctly?
51:33 We have met twice with Major Klein, and we’ve been collaboratively
51:39 looking at the courses,
51:40 and there is a way that we can do this.
51:42 We just confirmed it last week.
51:45 And I’m going to have a plan to propose to you guys, hopefully,
51:49 after spring break.
51:50 I’m going to review it with Dr. Rendell next week, an outline of
51:53 what this will look
51:54 like, but we have been meeting, we’ve met twice, and this will
51:59 be a part of in the fall.
52:01 Okay.
52:03 All right.
52:04 So we think that’s important for them to take – it would be a
52:08 course –
52:08 No, I agree.
52:09 Yeah.
52:10 So just to make sure that we’re not degrading any of the nicotine
52:13 charges, it’s just that
52:13 we’re going to add this supplemental piece –
52:14 Yes.
52:15 – and then you were asking –
52:16 Are we going to add the actual –
52:17 The public service.
52:19 I like the public service part of it.
52:20 Like part of it, instead of in school –
52:21 The school’s cleaned up and –
52:22 Yeah.
52:23 I’m like, if they don’t have ISS, then that’s probably a prime
52:26 opportunity to maybe – they
52:26 don’t have space in the school for ISS.
52:28 Why not look at that as –
52:29 It’s actually out of school.
52:31 Our code of conduct for tobacco, if you look on page 24, it’s
52:34 out of school.
52:35 So the committee was asking for ISS or this home course instead
52:40 of –
52:40 Right.
52:41 – instead of that.
52:42 And the staff came back to them and said, no, we’re not going to
52:45 do that.
52:45 But we’ll add the citation, which if they want to pay off the
52:48 citation, they have to take
52:48 the course.
52:49 So you can add the public service.
52:50 So that’s outside of us.
52:51 You can add the public service if you need to.
52:53 I mean, I like the idea of public service being a part of
52:56 discipline, but that’s my personal
52:58 opinion.
52:59 Send them on the sheriff’s work crew.
53:00 No, no, no, no, no.
53:01 The citation does that.
53:02 And we’re not doing it.
53:03 That’s how they pay off the citation.
53:04 I just couldn’t do that with a 16-year-old.
53:05 Defensive driving for traffic tickets.
53:06 I wonder if the sheriff would want to set up something.
53:07 Well, it’s kind of like that STAR program I used to have, I
53:08 think.
53:08 I think you can save them.
53:09 Sorry.
53:10 We’re going in the weeds.
53:11 That’s it.
53:12 We’re good.
53:13 Next up.
53:14 Yep.
53:15 We’re good.
53:16 Next up.
53:17 Yep.
53:18 We’re good.
53:19 Next up.
53:20 Yep.
53:22 We’re good.
53:23 All right.
53:25 We’re in yellow, folks.
53:27 Number nine.
53:28 This is going to be one of the district recommendations.
53:32 Moving forward.
53:33 This would be technically a revision of what was already –
53:37 actually, no, this would be a
53:38 new one.
53:39 Taunting and teasing.
53:40 You’re going to see some of the impact on this has to do with
53:44 things that don’t rise to
53:46 the level of bullying and harassment.
53:48 So, adding a new taunting or teasing code to our level two of
53:52 corrective actions for elementary
53:54 and secondary, the definition would read as follows, making fun
53:58 of, mocking, or attempting
53:59 to provoke or irritate, provoking behavior and/or persistent
54:03 annoyances that does not rise
54:05 to the level of definition of bullying or harassment.
54:09 So, what we have seen is there’s been some schools that say,
54:12 okay, it does not meet the criteria
54:14 of bullying harassment, but the actions of the student were
54:18 still unacceptable.
54:19 And sometimes they felt that they didn’t know properly what to
54:22 code something.
54:22 So, the idea was to try to give them something to say, okay, it
54:26 might not meet the criteria
54:27 of this assessor, but here’s something that you would be able to
54:30 code it that would still
54:31 provide a corrective action for that incident.
54:34 Dr. Rendell, you good with this?
54:35 Dr. Rendell: Mm-hmm.
54:36 Dr. Rendell: All right.
54:37 Dr. Rendell: Everybody good?
54:38 Dr. Rendell: Okay.
54:39 Dr. Rendell: Next up?
54:40 Dr. Rendell: All right.
54:41 Dr. Rendell: 10 and 11 are kind of sisters of one another.
54:44 So, these are addition of other misconduct code.
54:49 This would be new to level two in both our elementary and
54:53 secondary.
54:54 The code would read as follows, any other act of misconduct that
54:58 is more serious, harmful,
54:59 is more disruptive.
55:00 It’s an example of any offenses described in level one, which
55:03 may interfere with the orderly
55:04 operation of school or school activity and cannot be coded as
55:08 another level two offense.
55:09 The idea of saying, okay, we understand that this is totally not
55:13 a level two, but it really
55:14 doesn’t really meet the idea of a level one either or a level
55:19 three.
55:19 So, the idea was to give schools the ability to still code
55:23 something for unacceptable behavior.
55:25 Dr. Rendell: And you’d see that’s also for 11.
55:28 So, number 10 for other misconduct would be in for our level two
55:33 ones for an incident that
55:33 doesn’t really fit in the means of our current code of student
55:37 conduct.
55:38 And number 11 would be adding to the level three version of that.
55:42 Dr. Rendell: Dr. Rendell, are you good with this?
55:43 Dr. Rendell: Mm-hmm.
55:44 Dr. Rendell: Everybody good?
55:45 Dr. Rendell: This addresses the creativity of our students.
55:46 Dr. Rendell: Yep, yep.
55:47 Dr. Rendell: It does.
55:48 Dr. Rendell: All right.
55:49 Dr. Rendell: We’re good.
55:50 Dr. Rendell: And a lot of times in other districts, too, you
55:51 might see this.
55:51 Dr. Rendell: That’s a very nice way of saying that.
55:52 Dr. Rendell: Well, I’m sorry.
55:53 Dr. Rendell: It’s okay.
55:54 Dr. Rendell: Go ahead.
55:55 Dr. Rendell: 12.
55:56 Dr. Rendell: There you go.
55:57 Dr. Rendell: Keep going down.
55:58 Dr. Rendell: Yep.
55:59 Dr. Rendell: There we go.
56:00 Dr. Rendell: All right.
56:01 Dr. Rendell: Number 12, sexting.
56:02 It is a current behavior infraction that we already have.
56:04 This would just be an update on the language itself.
56:08 Believing that this really just more encompasses exactly what
56:12 sexting is.
56:13 Dr. Rendell: Love it.
56:14 Dr. Rendell: Anything that does not rise to the level of an SXH
56:16 or sexual harassment defined
56:17 by the state would then be should be coded as sexting.
56:21 So this is just an update to that language itself.
56:24 Dr. Rendell: Everybody good?
56:25 Dr. Rendell: Yeah.
56:26 Dr. Rendell: Hang on because I had a question about this.
56:27 I want to make sure.
56:28 Dr. Rendell: I read it.
56:29 It looked pretty good.
56:30 Dr. Rendell: Okay.
56:31 Good.
56:32 Dr. Rendell: Yes, I’m good.
56:33 Dr. Rendell: We’re good, Justin.
56:34 Thank you.
56:35 Dr. Rendell: All right, number 13.
56:36 This is going to be a replacement.
56:37 So this would be replacing our current incident code of pantsing,
56:46 which is a fun one.
56:48 The new name for pantsing, we would encode that one and we would
56:53 create a new one called
56:54 indecent exposure of self others with the intent to embarrass.
56:57 So if you remember earlier, I said about an indecent exposure
57:01 where it said maybe someone accidentally
57:02 pulled down, you know, pants or whatnot, not meaning it in any
57:06 type of sexual act or misconduct.
57:08 This one would be actually saying you intensely did something in
57:12 order to cause that person’s
57:14 undergarments or body parts to be exposed, but would not reach
57:18 the level of a sexual offense
57:19 defined by the state of Florida in Cesar.
57:21 I’m good with it.
57:22 Dr. Rendell: Sounds good.
57:23 Are we good?
57:24 All right.
57:25 Dr. Rendell: I’m getting there.
57:26 Dr. Rendell: Number 14, public display of affection, PDA.
57:29 Again, this is a current infraction.
57:32 It’s just a simple, more updated definition of it just to be a
57:38 little bit more concise
57:40 because we felt that it was kind of all over the place with it.
57:43 So it’s just adding a little bit more clarity to an existing
57:46 definition.
57:47 Dr. Rendell: I’m good.
57:48 You guys good?
57:49 I’m good with this one.
57:50 Dr. Rendell: All right.
57:51 Thank you.
57:52 Dr. Rendell: And number 15.
57:53 Dr. Rendell: Number 15 is an update to policy 5520 of disorder
57:57 and demonstration.
57:59 School Board policy 5520.
58:02 The language there you see italicized bolded is language that
58:06 would be added to it.
58:07 Students who violate this policy are subject to discipline and
58:09 according to this code and student
58:11 conduct.
58:12 Student behavior incident coding for such occurrences, depending
58:15 on severity, shall be coded as gross
58:17 insubordination, number 127, leaving campus without permission,
58:21 033, or disruption on campus
58:24 DOC, which is assessor state code.
58:27 This provides a little flexibility for the administrator based
58:31 on the severity of what’s happening on
58:33 their campus.
58:34 This would simply be us updating policy 5520 and just training
58:39 administrators on process
58:40 and procedure of this.
58:42 Dr. Rendell: I’m fine with it.
58:46 Is this going to possibly be changed depending on the board’s
58:49 conversation around policy 5520?
58:50 Dr. Rendell: We have this discussion right afterwards.
58:51 Ms. Dampierre was mentioning that.
58:52 Dr. Rendell: Yeah.
58:53 Dr. Rendell: We’re going to talk about this in a little bit.
58:54 Dr. Rendell: Okay.
58:55 Dr. Rendell: Policy, but as far as us coding in the code of
58:59 student conduct, the consequences,
59:02 the level gross insubordination and leaving campus are those
59:06 level three.
59:07 Dr. Rendell: Mm-hmm.
59:08 Dr. Rendell: And disruption on campus is level four.
59:09 Dr. Rendell: Okay.
59:10 Dr. Rendell: So it does give the principle flexibility.
59:11 Dr. Rendell: Okay.
59:12 Dr. Rendell: And we didn’t have anything previously in the code
59:15 of student conduct.
59:16 So I feel like it’s very important that we do have some
59:18 direction.
59:18 Dr. Rendell: Okay.
59:19 Dr. Rendell: I agree.
59:20 Dr. Rendell: So even if the policy does change, it does not
59:24 impact the, you know, the coding
59:27 of what those consequences should be.
59:28 Dr. Rendell: Okay.
59:29 Dr. Rendell: So where is this language going?
59:30 Dr. Rendell: This language is actually going to be in the code
59:33 of student conduct.
59:33 Dr. Rendell: It’s going to be in the body of it, ma’am.
59:35 Dr. Rendell: Is it already in the red line?
59:37 Dr. Rendell: It should be in the red line, yes, ma’am.
59:39 Dr. Rendell: Under –
59:40 Dr. Rendell: I can find it for you.
59:42 Dr. Rendell: Consequences.
59:43 Dr. Rendell: Okay.
59:44 Dr. Rendell: I have too many papers.
59:45 Dr. Rendell: It should be on the red line page of page 30, under
1:00:00 Disruption and Demonstration
1:00:01 School Board Policy 5520.
1:00:02 Dr. Rendell: Okay.
1:00:03 Dr. Rendell: So you’ll see a small excerpt of it, and then the
1:00:06 policies will be hyperlinked.
1:00:08 Dr. Rendell: So this way when we’re ever having to do changes in
1:00:12 policy, we’re not always having
1:00:13 to go dig through and change.
1:00:14 Dr. Rendell: So the idea is giving kind of just an overview of
1:00:17 that policy and then hyperlinking
1:00:19 it so that way the community always has the most current version
1:00:23 of that policy.
1:00:24 Dr. Rendell: Okay.
1:00:25 Dr. Rendell: So everything else is kind of –
1:00:28 Dr. Rendell: So basically depending on what the level of the
1:00:34 demonstration, what it caused,
1:00:36 whatever is where – so then they would – it would be gross insubordination.
1:00:40 It would go to the table and charts that have the level threes.
1:00:43 Dr. Rendell: Okay.
1:00:44 Dr. Rendell: Yes, ma’am.
1:00:45 Dr. Rendell: So it’s getting its own little spot.
1:00:46 Dr. Rendell: Yes.
1:00:47 Dr. Rendell: I’m good with that.
1:00:48 Dr. Rendell: Good.
1:00:49 Dr. Rendell: Everybody else good?
1:00:50 Dr. Rendell: Okay.
1:00:52 Dr. Rendell: And that actually concludes it.
1:00:53 Dr. Rendell: Thank you so much for your time.
1:00:54 Dr. Rendell: Thank you so much.
1:00:55 Dr. Rendell: Did you guys want to take a real quick break?
1:00:57 Dr. Rendell: Absolutely.
1:00:58 Dr. Rendell: Anything you need.
1:00:59 Dr. Rendell: I’m moving forward with that recommendation.
1:01:06 We just have people that are asking that question, so it would
1:01:09 entail a lot of –
1:01:10 Dr. Rendell: That’s going to be the board.
1:01:11 Dr. Rendell: What recommendation?
1:01:12 Dr. Rendell: For the following year to go to a system like what?
1:01:15 Dr. Rendell: It would be 27.
1:01:16 Dr. Rendell: I don’t know.
1:01:17 I only heard Ms. Wright talk about that, so I don’t know.
1:01:19 Dr. Rendell: No?
1:01:20 Dr. Rendell: Okay.
1:01:21 Dr. Rendell: I don’t –
1:01:22 Dr. Rendell: I mean, that’s a board’s decision.
1:01:23 Dr. Rendell: Can we discuss it and then give direction based
1:01:26 upon it?
1:01:26 Dr. Rendell: We can add that to a further workshop.
1:01:28 Dr. Rendell: Right.
1:01:29 Dr. Rendell: That’s what I was going to say.
1:01:30 Dr. Rendell: Maybe at the next workshop we can talk about it.
1:01:31 Dr. Rendell: It’s 27, 28.
1:01:32 Dr. Rendell: Yeah.
1:01:33 Dr. Rendell: That would be done next year, so –
1:01:34 Dr. Rendell: Right.
1:01:35 Dr. Rendell: And if we’re going to have that conversation,
1:01:37 because it will take more than
1:01:38 just the November to March process, can I suggest that if there
1:01:44 are districts
1:01:44 who have a model like that –
1:01:45 Dr. Rendell: We have already –
1:01:48 Dr. Rendell: Yeah.
1:01:49 Dr. Rendell: There are.
1:01:50 Dr. Rendell: Fantastic.
1:01:51 Dr. Rendell: We know that it’s –
1:01:52 Dr. Rendell: Fantastic.
1:01:53 Dr. Rendell: At least the districts that we talk to, it takes at
1:01:54 least a year to make
1:01:54 sure that it’s done and it’s done correctly, because we want to
1:01:57 do it right.
1:01:57 We don’t want to half-step do so.
1:01:58 Dr. Rendell: Right.
1:01:59 Dr. Rendell: Appreciate that.
1:02:00 Dr. Rendell: I think that would make more sense.
1:02:01 Dr. Rendell: Does that give you the guidance you need?
1:02:03 Dr. Rendell: Yes.
1:02:04 Dr. Rendell: All right.
1:02:05 Dr. Rendell: It did.
1:02:15 Dr. Rendell: Thank you very much.
1:19:57 Thank you.