Updates on the Fight for Quality Public Education in Brevard County, FL
0:00 ♪♪
0:56 »The work session is now in order. Mr. Paul Gibbs, please call
0:59 roll.
0:59 »Mr. season.
1:00 »Here.
1:01 »Ms. Wright.
1:02 »Here.
1:03 »Mr. Trent.
1:04 »Here.
1:05 »Ms. Campbell.
1:06 »Here.
1:07 »Mr. Thomas.
1:08 »Here.
1:09 »Thank you. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
1:10 »I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
1:14 America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,
1:19 under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
1:22 »On today’s agenda, we have the following review of proposed
1:25 changes to the 2026-2027 code of conduct, student accommodation
1:30 plan review, strategic plan facilities planning update, and
1:33 discussion on revising policy 5520. Ms. Dampierre.
1:37 »Thank you. Good morning, Superintendent Rendell and school
1:42 board members. I have Mr. Armstrong, director of systems of
1:46 support, who will be co-presenting with me this morning,
1:48 as well as some team members that will be scribing in real time
1:53 to any recommended changes.
1:55 Today, I’m presenting the proposed revisions to the 2026-2027
2:01 code of student conduct developed by the district discipline
2:05 work group in collaboration with district stakeholders.
2:08 These recommendations reflect a comprehensive review of current
2:14 practices and stakeholder input to ensure consistency and
2:19 support a positive learning environment for all students.
2:24 We had the opportunity to convene the district discipline work
2:30 group from November through February to review and update the
2:36 code of student conduct.
2:38 The district discipline work group consisted of representatives
2:58 from our teacher’s association.
3:07 The district discipline work group consisted of representatives
3:12 from each board member of the board federal.
3:14 Teachers unit provides association of school administrators,
3:19 local union, 10 10 students, school resource officers and
3:24 community members.
3:25 And we met for three to our sessions throughout that time. So we
3:29 really had some good feedback throughout those sessions.
3:35 As you can see, we had our PBS core team once we met with the
3:40 discipline work group, our district core team met to review the
3:45 feedback and revise the document and plan.
3:48 So every time we met with the discipline work group, they knew
3:52 what that feedback was.
3:53 And then we reviewed it so then we could start another process
3:58 for the next work of the group.
4:00 And then the timeline was March 2026, which is today.
4:07 We were going to present the work of the group and the
4:10 recommendations of the school board.
4:11 And then our timeline is from April to May to have a final code
4:18 of conduct approved by the board.
4:22 A structured protocol guided the work group through a continuous
4:27 cycle of feedback to reach consensus to the revisions of the
4:31 code of student conduct.
4:32 And we really had a lot of good conversations as well as
4:38 discussion as to what should be what they would like to have
4:43 changed as well as things that are going good with the code of
4:48 conduct.
4:49 So at this time, I will turn the presentation over to Mr.
4:53 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.
5:21 Like Ms. Dampier said, this will be live scribed in the back so
5:26 any feedback we get, we’ll be able to capture that live here.
5:31 If you can use the folders that were provided you this morning,
5:35 that’s going to have the most updated information.
5:37 And then I’m just going to basically go right through and feel
5:42 free to ask questions as you see fit.
5:44 All right, so looking at how you would– actually, you know what,
5:50 let me go back for– let me explain real quick.
5:54 Let me show you actually how to read it just in case this is a
5:58 refresher.
5:58 When you’re looking at the spreadsheet, there’s kind of a guide
6:01 on the top there.
6:02 So your item number is going to be listed of items 1 through,
6:07 let’s say, 15.
6:08 So those are the topics we’re talking about.
6:11 Next to it is the session and the session is basically going to
6:15 be what session, either session 1, 2 or 3 that it was mentioned
6:20 at the DDWG.
6:21 Revised, yes or no, the one that’s on the third column there.
6:25 That’s basically is it a revision of something in a current
6:29 practice or is it something new.
6:31 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.
6:38 So SB you might see as Student Behaviors, CS Corrective Strategy,
6:43 and then the level numbers are referring to the charts in our
6:46 Code of Student Conduct on pages 9 through 18 on the current
6:52 student Code of Conduct.
6:56 The recommendation is a summary of the DDWG’s recommendation.
7:00 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.
7:15 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,
7:27 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.
7:39 The impact is this proposed impact of what it would take in
7:43 order to accomplish that recommendation,
7:45 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
7:57 before. Any changes are going to be underlined, italicized and
8:00 bolded.
8:00 Anything with the strikethrough is language that we would be
8:04 recommending to be removed.
8:06 And then 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
8:12 information live.
8:13 OK, now you get a little bit better idea where we’re at. So here
8:18 we are on the live version of that spreadsheet.
8:22 So we see again here item number, session, revision, topic,
8:27 recommendation, proposed change, impact and feedback.
8:30 So number one was the addition of a safe harbor provision to
8:37 policy.
8:38 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, not excluding firearms or drugs.
8:51 So let’s say if a student accidentally brought a pocket knife
8:55 over the weekend
8:55 and turned it in to administration before entering into school
8:59 grounds or through open gate, they would not be receiving the
9:04 disciplinary action as it be.
9:06 If we search them, let’s say, on second or third period and they
9:10 found it, that would result in a disciplinary action.
9:15 Sorry, I think I’m trying to find artifact three for the very
9:18 first one that we’re talking about. And I’m like, I don’t pay
9:21 for its paper.
9:22 You don’t have that. No, I don’t think so. I mean, it was there
9:28 with me for once.
9:29 I think it seems that much unfamiliar. All right. Yeah, I’m
9:34 missing that.
9:34 OK, thank you. So artifact three that you guys have is just a
9:40 proposed draft of a current policy for weapons, which is fifty
9:44 seven seventy two.
9:44 It would have the additional language embedded in there
9:48 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.
10:08 Can I ask you a question? Yes. Is I’m wondering if this is the
10:12 place to put it or if we can put it here in other places,
10:15 because if would we, for example, for safe harbor, would we
10:21 include safe devices or something like that of the voluntary?
10:23 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. I mean, I don’t have a problem with putting in multiple
10:36 places.
10:36 Sure. But definitely if we’re going to include other items that
10:41 might not be considered weapons might be good to put it
10:44 somewhere else to understand.
10:46 So maybe the recommendation of adding it to policy fifty seven
10:50 seventy one for search and seizure as well.
10:53 Right. That one. Did you give that one to us? Or did you just
11:08 know that number off the top of your head? Guilty of just
11:08 knowing it off the top of my head.
11:08 Yeah, that that is the one that would embed any type of search
11:12 action, the do’s and don’ts. So we can definitely look at doing
11:16 that.
11:16 I think that’s smarter to do rather than trying to figure out
11:19 which policies have touched because this safe harbor might exist
11:22 to several different policies.
11:23 So you might want to consider just a standalone policy of safe
11:27 harbor provision that would cover multiple issues.
11:30 Right. If you don’t like right now, it’s just in weapons. So if
11:33 you send it to me, I’d say it applies to the weapons policy.
11:36 Not necessarily other policies, but if the board’s will is to
11:40 have it apply to vape devices, if you have someone who’s old
11:43 enough to have one, but it’s contraband on our campus says, hey,
11:47 wait a minute.
11:47 And they want to turn it in. Well, can I can I also put another
11:51 scenario? So maybe it doesn’t need to go and maybe even search
11:54 and seizure.
11:54 I like that idea better because search and seizure means we’re
11:57 already in the process of investigating and it would not qualify
12:00 under the right.
12:00 And it wouldn’t qualify. Could we potentially have it with this
12:04 cover scenarios of let’s say, you know, you got a young student
12:08 who was accused of or someone’s missing a phone and the student,
12:11 you know, admits and turns it in.
12:12 Are we going to safe harbor? Seems like that would cover
12:15 situations like that.
12:15 Anything that we’re we might be looking for that you’re not
12:18 supposed to have that you let us know you have before we figure
12:21 out you have it.
12:21 Right. That’s the idea of safe harbor. The safe harbor. Not
12:25 necessarily that one.
12:25 If they’re looking for a phone, they’re investigating. And under
12:29 the language that they proposed, it was it’s already been
12:32 initiated.
12:32 So they’re looking for it. So you would be disciplined for
12:35 taking the item. So it would not cover that.
12:37 This is I was fishing and I had a knife in my bag, so I brought
12:43 it to school and I forgot.
12:45 So when I get there, I check my bag before walking through open
12:48 gate and say, hey, I’ve got this.
12:49 So you go talk to the principal or the assistant principal and
12:53 say, hey, I need to turn this in because I had it from my
12:56 fishing when I went after school on 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.
13:04 Just throwing that one out in a student’s backpack and their
13:07 backpack up.
13:07 And they’re like, this isn’t mine. And it borrows the backpack
13:11 or an older sibling borrows their backpack to go somewhere and
13:14 leave something in there.
13:15 Think of lots of things. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there’s there’s
13:19 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 been happen prior to them entering open gate.
13:29 Right. Which at this time, obviously we don’t have in our
13:33 elementary and middle schools.
13:35 But the idea that if that was ever implemented. But yeah, the
13:38 idea is that when you first get on campus, not third period, I
13:42 said, oops, like.
13:43 Yeah. Right. Unless you have a scenario which we have had before
13:46 where people find stuff.
13:47 I mean, you know, the earlier the better we we want to encourage
13:51 reporting is right is what we’re trying to do with this safe
13:53 harbor policy.
13:54 So I think a standalone policy would would probably be best
14:00 because it seems like it would be the broadest application.
14:05 And we can probably use a lot of the language we actually were
14:11 proposing for 57 71 and just carry that on over to a standalone
14:16 policy.
14:17 I agree. I think that’s easier than trying to touch every single
14:20 policy where safe harbor might exist because that would be a lot
14:23 more work.
14:23 Would this have to go back before the discipline committee to
14:27 know?
14:27 OK. So we don’t have to do that. All right. Just making sure we’re
14:32 still doing it. We’re just deciding where to put it. Right. OK.
14:36 Yeah. We’re just moving around.
14:37 Good. And as you can see, we’re capturing that right there on
14:42 the feedback.
14:43 So the next one, the next one’s a little bit more
14:45 straightforward. This item, too, brought up in session one.
14:49 This is an existing student behavior we’ve had.
14:55 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 thought is a little vague in its
15:09 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.
15:18 The proposed change would keep the same student behavior name of
15:23 chemical spray misuse, but would be changed to the intentional
15:26 unsafe use of any spray or aerosol in a way that has a negative
15:30 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
15:40 make, and this would just be a simple change in our student code
15:45 of conduct and the glossary for the definitions.
15:49 Justin, is the intention to have it intentional and unsafe or
15:54 intentional or unsafe? I would recommend just sticking which one
15:59 you want in there.
16:00 Because it’s unclear. Then you’re questioning is it required to
16:09 have both an intentional and unsafe or just intentional or just
16:14 unsafe?
16:14 I think the addition is intentional.
16:20 So if I intentionally and unsafely use an aerosol.
16:24 Right, if I intentionally use the hairspray but not in an unsafe
16:29 way, but it disrupts, yeah, it wouldn’t fall under.
16:32 If both are required, if only one’s required, I intentionally
16:35 use the hairspray and it causes this problem, you could end up
16:38 in a, am I getting disciplined for that?
16:40 That’s why I’m saying is it intentional and unsafe or just one
16:47 or the other?
16:48 That’ll make a difference in how it gets applied.
16:50 Yeah, we can change that. We can do it as far as an intentional
16:55 use or unsafe.
16:56 So you’re suggesting that we don’t need, is unsafe redundant
17:01 because they’ve added 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. So he’s just saying the word unsafe
17:14 and it clears it up.
17:14 I mean, I don’t have any problem with the rest of it. I would
17:17 clarify whether you want it to be both intentional and unsafe.
17:20 You could remove unsafe, but if it has the negative consequences,
17:24 there is going to be the key for discipline purposes other than
17:28 it could be intentional or unintentional depending on how you
17:32 define those two things.
17:34 So if we’re in agreeance, we can go ahead and remove the
17:38 language of unsafe and keep the intentional use of any spray
17:41 aerosol in a way that has a negative or adverse effect on others
17:45 or disrupts the learning environment?
17:46 I agree. I think that’s the cleanest.
17:50 I’m trying to think of an intentional safe way that does that.
17:54 It could come up with the hairspray thing. If someone uses it,
17:58 they have an extreme allergy, it could have adverse impacts on
18:02 the classroom or other students, but it was used in a safe way.
18:06 It could be an unintentional thing, whereas it’s intentional and
18:11 unsafe both.
18:12 Yeah, it really comes what we hear a lot is like the Axe body
18:21 spray and the perfumes. It’s not the idea of someone spraying it
18:26 directly in someone’s face. It’s the idea of that someone that
18:26 would have an allergic reaction to it or they know that someone
18:28 in that classroom has existing allergies and they’re doing it
18:32 intentionally to cause a disruption or an adverse impact.
18:36 Okay.
18:42 So item three brought up in session one. Again, it’s just a
18:45 quick revision. This is a corrective strategy or corrective
18:50 action.
18:50 This is an existing one already, reassigned bus seating. We
18:55 noticed that in the code of conduct that it was a level one
18:58 corrective action, but your first actual bus violation starts in
19:02 level two, so it was just us correcting something that needed to
19:07 be corrected anyway.
19:08 So all we’re doing is moving the reassigned bus seat from a
19:12 level one corrective strategy to a level two, since that’s the
19:16 first time where you see a bus infraction minor is in level two.
19:20 And the impact would just be updating the code of conduct and
19:25 updating the levels in there. It wouldn’t change out any other
19:32 rollout.
19:33 Okay, so the next one is indecent misconduct. That is one that’s
19:40 currently there. It’s a student behavior number 47 of 138.
19:46 Considering a name change to indecent exposure instead of
19:52 indecent misconduct.
19:54 So as you can see, you see the crossed out struck through of
20:00 what indecent misconduct is currently. A student exposing or
20:05 showing his or her private body parts in a manner that is not
20:06 lewd and lascivious, and there is no proof the student had a
20:09 conscious sexual intent.
20:10 Currently, this resides just in our elementary code of student
20:14 conduct. The idea would be to change that language to align
20:18 better with indecent exposure of self or others.
20:22 The little pound signs next to it. That’s where we would enter a
20:26 new student code there.
20:28 A student, a student through the intentional action accidentally
20:33 exposes their own or another person’s undergarments or body
20:36 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
20:58 and updating pertinent documents affecting it.
21:04 Number five is brought up in session two. Again, it’s a revision
21:14 of our out of assigned area minor zero 40. The group wanted to
21:20 see additional options that didn’t just include in school
21:20 suspension.
21:20 There was also a recommendation to remove safety plan from a
21:24 level two offense and the guidelines.
21:26 So if you can see on your artifact one, we have went ahead and
21:31 change that. So the BPS core team remove safety plan as a
21:35 required corrective action.
21:37 And we’ve also added out of school suspension as an additional
21:41 option for the third offense, really aimed at schools that do
21:45 not have an in school suspension.
21:46 They would also have the option for an out of school suspension
21:51 if they deem that appropriate.
21:53 Mr. Chair.
21:56 Yes.
21:58 Just on the next two, this one and the next one, I think that we
22:02 should give some consideration and making it separate a separate
22:06 policy for elementary versus secondary.
22:08 Just because, you know, a second or third grader being out of
22:13 area is probably a little different than or out of an assigned
22:17 area is a little different than 11th grader.
22:21 So I think we should get some consideration of giving some
22:27 principles, some discretion of the elementary school principal,
22:33 some discretion in that area.
22:35 They do have so we’re moving.
22:39 This is the third offense, right? So they do have so first
22:43 offense is could just be we’re going to reach out to your
22:46 parents, right?
22:47 The second one could be that this is this is a list of options.
22:51 It’s not we’re doing all the things right in the guidelines.
22:55 Those are supposed to be required.
22:57 OK, so on the first offense, they would have the detention and
23:02 the parent contact and OK, the options are in school suspension
23:05 or alternative classroom location.
23:07 Correct. For those schools that wouldn’t have an in school
23:11 suspension that they would still be able to place that student
23:14 in a location, not in like per se another classroom of students,
23:18 but somewhere where they would be monitored by an adult and be
23:20 getting their work.
23:20 Right. Which a lot of times is like a fourth grader going down
23:24 to a second grade class or whatever, and they’re in the corner
23:26 or maybe the counselor’s office or the or the yeah, the front
23:29 office or like, you know, something like that.
23:36 So what’s your recommendation? Just before we put somebody on
23:40 the on the ladder moving him up, I just think that the principal
23:44 should have a little more discretion than maybe in the secondary
23:48 years, because obviously they are.
23:51 But they know the kids. Well, they know whether the kids kids
23:55 just is wandering around because he has some other issue,
23:58 personal issue, you know, family issue.
24:00 Maybe. I mean, I’m just saying there could be a lot of factors
24:03 that come into that just to give the principal some discretion,
24:06 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 think there’s principals I’ve spoken to
24:14 principals wish they had a little more discretion so they didn’t
24:17 because they know the family circumstances or what have you that
24:21 might, you know, without putting the putting the kid into
24:23 immediate, you know, on the ladder and getting him in trouble.
24:25 They have a runner, right? We have we have that’s why we have
24:26 some of our behavior techs in every school to deal with some of
24:30 those kind of problems when you have people who are runners to
24:34 use the elementary verbiage.
24:37 Of course, if they’re ESC, there’s some discretion. I mean, I
24:43 guess I would like to hear from our, you know, like from
24:47 administrators how much flexibility do they feel like they have
24:52 with a student who might be dealing with traumatic things or,
24:57 you know, I don’t know.
24:58 I mean, I’m just wondering, do we need to is it worth making the
25:01 change to this if they feel like they already have flexibility
25:04 for those extraneous circumstances?
25:06 I’m seeing Pam Shaker head.
25:14 That’s why we make some changes.
25:19 And some of them came with the intention of giving feedback that
25:23 their hands were tied. So this was the only suggestion that they
25:28 came up with as far as with the outside area.
25:30 Since some minor options and it’s in progression.
25:38 For the for the latter, but not for whether they even get the
25:41 first offense, there’s not an option, whether they there’s not
25:45 much of an option for discretion for the principal in the first
25:48 offensive.
25:48 I’m understanding it correctly. I believe that the first one, if
25:53 I’m not mistaken, it’s a detention.
25:56 And my point is, is that it may not require detention the first
26:00 time.
26:00 Maybe this should be just given the principal’s elementary
26:04 school principals and discretion.
26:06 That we had committee members really want us to be consistent
26:14 across the district.
26:16 We did add some ranges for some of them. But for this one, they
26:20 felt very strongly about keeping it the one day because this is
26:24 like a minor three days.
26:25 So you would have intervened hopefully before you’ve gotten to
26:30 that three days in school.
26:32 I think we’re Mr. Thomas is getting to is.
26:37 Do they have to report it at all? I mean, do they have to?
26:41 Because the discipline is if it gets reported.
26:42 I mean, could there be a scenario where a principal there’s a
26:45 there’s a traumatic situation happening and a kid ran out of
26:48 class upset, whatever.
26:48 Do they have to immediately go in here and report and put them
26:53 down in focus as 0 4 0? I don’t know.
26:55 But my point is where that’s a mixed message of the principles,
26:57 too, because we tell them that we want them to enforce the
27:00 policies, which we tell the superintendent.
27:01 We want the principles of enforce the policies that are that we
27:06 enact.
27:06 I don’t want to create a have a policy that we say, OK, but you
27:10 don’t always have to enforce it.
27:11 I’d rather I’d rather at least have the give say they have
27:15 discretion because I know I’ve spoken one principle in
27:18 particular.
27:18 I can recall the conversation saying I’m a rule follower. And if
27:22 it says this is what I have to do, I have to do even if I don’t
27:24 think it’s you know, even if I don’t agree with it.
27:26 And I can tell you that’s why we did as a district at it. Some
27:30 you have in your packet, some yellow the yellow coats.
27:34 Those were district codes because some of the principles really
27:37 felt like their hands were tied. 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, under this section.
27:50 I think when we get to either we’re going to do the one to three
27:54 or we’re going to do three days, two days.
27:56 I’m hearing it both ways. I have some people who want the one to
28:00 three.
28:00 Then I have what? Some that three. Then I have committee
28:04 community members that want just the three.
28:06 We just need direction quick because some of these we do have
28:10 one day or three days.
28:11 And that happened last year. Some of the board members wanted us
28:15 to change some of these to three days.
28:16 And then we have some areas that we have like one to three days
28:19 or three to five days. So we just need to, you know, decide.
28:26 My comment, you know, apologize, it’s not about the this, you
28:31 know, about the third offense, but it’s about the out of
28:35 assigned area. That’s where I was more throwing it.
28:36 Injecting a little opinion on doing something. So, you know,
28:39 give the add something to this policy that gives them a little
28:42 flexibility before they get to level one.
28:44 I think where I fall on this is remembering a couple of years
28:49 ago when we first started, you know, revising the student code
28:53 of conduct, particularly around this area is the we had a term
29:00 for it was a term when students eloping students eloping from
29:05 campus or, you know, whether it was inside the boundaries of the
29:07 campus or even off campus was had was becoming a significant
29:12 problem.
29:12 And when students are out of area, it could be just a kid
29:15 wandering around and hey, what are you doing out of class? But
29:19 it also can be situations where administrators are now having to
29:22 be off task instead of doing what they’re supposed to be doing.
29:24 Those teachers are now chasing kids across campus. And so I
29:28 certainly think that’s a repeated thing that they’re part of
29:32 their goal is going to be to make sure they get with a behavior
29:35 tag or we have that support to make sure that student
29:38 understands expectations and that they they know they can’t do
29:42 it.
29:42 And if it’s a scenario where someone is, you know, they’re a
29:45 student with autism or some other behavior that some frequently
29:47 has outbursts or whatever, that’s going to be an ESE student
29:50 that those kind of consequences are going to be addressed within
29:55 their IEP and would not be necessarily something that would be
29:59 following these guidelines.
30:01 So I’m I’m OK with it as it is. The changes, you know, if a
30:05 school doesn’t have an ISS, it’s really hard for elementary
30:09 schools because then you basically have a clerk, a secretary, a
30:13 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’s office, you know, and there with a school that
30:24 only has one AP, it’s really hard for them to do so as much as I
30:28 don’t want to put kids out of school suspension and in school
30:32 suspension is almost undoable in most of our elementary schools.
30:36 And with that first option of out of assigned area, if it would
30:40 not be exclusionary, it would just be an extended detention or
30:44 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, you know, best practice is always to call that parent and
31:02 contact them in any type of incident that we see on campus
31:07 because we want to partner with the parents.
31:10 Sorry, I’m trying to pull up the student code of conduct just to
31:13 look at.
31:13 You’ve got a copy right here.
31:15 No, I know, but I’m trying to look at the differentiation
31:18 between elementary and secondary because that’s where this
31:21 started, was you wanted it to be separated because it is very
31:28 different for our elementary kids versus if it’s not, I guess.
31:36 All right. So, Ms. Campbell, you’re okay with keeping it the way
31:40 that it is. John, you prefer to separate having –
31:43 Well, the only other thing, you know, considering that we made
31:46 the change a couple of years ago and the board was like moving
31:49 everything up, let’s move ones to twos and twos to threes.
31:51 We want to take this, you know, be tough on crime and kind of
31:54 thing.
31:54 I mean, if we’re – if you did – if the committee or the staff
31:59 was not willing to make those changes, if that was brought
32:02 forward from the committee, but you guys told them, well, no,
32:04 the board wanted this.
32:05 Then I want to hear that feedback because if we need to pull
32:09 some of these elementary school things down from a level two,
32:12 and I’m talking about these charts now, back down a ways because
32:17 that’s what the problem is, then tell us.
32:20 I don’t – because the board said two years ago and now we need
32:23 to know what the consequences are, what the feedback is, please
32:26 give that to us because if that’s what we need to do, I’m open
32:29 to that.
32:29 Mr. Chair?
32:30 You’re open to making it softer? Is that what you’re saying?
32:33 I’m open to going back to differentiating between elementary and
32:37 secondary.
32:37 And I’m – and just to clarify, you know, being tough on crime,
32:40 as you put it, as I’m all for it, if – I just want to give the
32:44 principal the discretion in elementary school to recognize
32:48 whether this is a crime, if it’s a, you know, intentional
32:51 violation of the rule or is there some other extenuating
32:53 circumstance.
32:54 Maybe it’s a – you know, just give them some – a little
32:57 flexibility.
32:57 That was all – just because the age group that we’re dealing
33:00 with, obviously the mindset of an elementary school kid,
33:02 especially early elementary, is much different than in the
33:05 secondary.
33:05 So I just thought it was – you know, it’s been brought up to my
33:08 attention, I thought it made sense, and I have comments on the
33:11 next issue as well – or the next item, so – but I’ll leave it
33:14 at that and leave it up to the board.
33:15 But I believe Ms. Dampier even mentioned, I mean, or maybe it
33:21 was Justin, is if the principal or the admin at that time, you
33:27 know, decides if they’re going to pursue it.
33:31 I mean, I mean, that’s the principal knowing their student.
33:35 If it’s an incident – innocent wandering off, that principal is
33:41 going to know it.
33:42 They’re not going to – I don’t know –
33:44 But they don’t have a discretion right now.
33:45 I don’t know what any principal is going to say.
33:47 I know you turn left instead of right, but the book says I have
33:51 to do something.
33:52 I’ve yet to meet one of those principals.
33:54 I mean, they live in the gray all day long, and so that’s the
33:59 discretion.
34:00 And, you know, we may not have that same discretion at the high
34:03 school when they’ve been in that school for three years and they’re
34:06 almost an adult.
34:06 They know they’re in the wrong area.
34:07 I agree. I’m out.
34:08 But, you know, our principals are wearing body cams.
34:12 We’re not going to hold them to it.
34:13 They’re going to make that call, and I think they do that every
34:17 day.
34:17 So I’ll go with leaving it the way it is.
34:22 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.
34:31 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
34:45 that the DDWG was willing to make
34:47 and seemed to be where they were at when we ended on the third
34:52 session.
34:52 So this is just our point of view based on our partnership with
34:57 the DDWG.
34:57 This is where we ended with this.
35:00 I think it’s a good choice, 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
35:07 campus is actually out of a signed area major.
35:09 This is just minor where we find – they find someone wandering
35:12 around campus.
35:13 But still – or not necessarily wandering around campus, but a
35:16 student gets up and walks out of a class, which is very unsafe.
35:19 Yeah, and our terminology about assigned area really can include
35:24 you taking that extra lunch or you skipping third period
35:26 or you just being somewhere where you know you’re not supposed
35:30 to be is why it’s kind of like –
35:32 some other districts might just call something just skipping and
35:35 skipping.
35:35 Here it’s just kind of encompassed as one thing in order to kind
35:39 of encapsulate it all.
35:40 Right, intentional.
35:42 I’m fine with leaving it as is.
35:45 Yeah, I’m fine with leaving it as is.
35:47 I don’t see a major.
35:49 All right, next one.
35:50 Okay.
35:52 Number six, physical aggression.
35:56 There was a – I will say this is one if I do hear any coming
36:01 from school leadership where initially when we rolled out the
36:06 guidelines last year,
36:08 how we had it was is that it was a day of – I believe it was an
36:13 in-school suspension day
36:14 or the equivalent as the first infractional consequence or
36:19 corrective action.
36:21 In schools we’re seeing that as a discrepancy.
36:23 If you remember before we used to have a fighting noncessor code
36:27 and we have our assessor fighting.
36:29 The idea last year is that we dropped fighting noncessor and
36:34 combined it with physical aggression
36:35 and changed it to basically say either it’s mutual or nonmutual,
36:38 you’re still making contact with another student.
36:42 Where the DDWG and some of the principals I spoke to, they felt
36:47 like if you look at our inciting one previous,
36:50 inciting does not mean that there’s any contact.
36:53 You’re just egging on that fight.
36:54 You’re doing something to kind of entice the other person to do
36:57 something bad.
36:58 That one resulted in potential out-of-school suspension, but the
37:04 actual physical connection of two kids fighting did not.
37:08 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
37:15 option to do an ISS equivalent,
37:17 but it also gives them the flexibility if they would choose to
37:20 do so to do an out-of-school suspension instead
37:23 based on the severity of that incident.
37:27 Whether it be a one-sided with someone just striking a kid maybe
37:31 in something that didn’t rise to the level of assessor content,
37:34 but still was a little bit above maybe a horseplay or something.
37:40 Mr. Chair?
37:41 Yes, sir.
37:42 Not to be the disruptor here, but that came up to me again as
37:47 well from principals.
37:50 Because a lot in elementary school it can be one thing if it’s
37:54 bullying or something that’s intentional,
37:55 somebody’s trying to actually fight somebody, but a lot of times
37:59 it is horseplay.
38:00 It could be two friends in a soccer match during PE and they get
38:06 a little heated and they push each other,
38:10 and next thing you know they both are in trouble, and then they
38:13 have the stay-away contract.
38:14 In my understanding, once again, it’s just limited understanding,
38:19 but those stay-away contracts are very hard.
38:21 The school ends up having – the administration has to monitor
38:25 trying to keep all these different kids away from each other
38:28 in these different stay-away contracts.
38:30 So once again, just giving a little flexibility to the principal
38:35 at the elementary level is what I would suggest considering.
38:39 That would be like considered horseplay is what I would think
38:43 when you’re saying that.
38:44 I mean, that’s what that sounds like in elementary.
38:47 Once again, it’s like if the principal is following the letter
38:50 of the law, then it’s –
38:51 But maybe what you’re talking about sounds like a misapplied
38:54 definition because we’ve got – and by the way, these are
38:57 separated.
38:57 Pre-K through second is a separate number, third through 12th,
39:03 because I think on the discipline things they have different
39:06 options,
39:06 but it’s specifically individual participating in a mutual or
39:10 non-mutual and/or aggressive physical contact.
39:12 So like an angry chef would be my thought, not horseplay.
39:17 With aggressive intent, it’s in the definition, towards another
39:21 student resulting in no injury.
39:22 So it doesn’t rise to the level of fight, but it’s more than
39:26 horseplay.
39:26 So that might be a misapplied definition because we have all
39:30 that in there.
39:30 Well, and I may have misapplied it the way I articulated it as
39:35 well, but I mean as far as – it may not be horseplay,
39:38 but it may be it was – the circumstance was brought to my
39:42 attention.
39:42 This is a true example.
39:43 The two best friends were playing basketball in the elementary
39:46 school.
39:46 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 and got into it a
39:53 little bit.
39:53 I guess they pushed each other.
39:55 The next thing you know, they have a stay-away contract, and the
39:58 parents are saying, “We don’t want to have a stay-away contract.
39:59 We’d like best friends.”
40:01 It’s an elementary school.
40:02 It was just a little – that was one example of just why there
40:06 should have been –
40:07 and this principal was going to follow the rules, obviously.
40:10 So just giving principals a little flexibility so they don’t
40:15 have to make that determination.
40:17 They can choose to make that determination.
40:19 I see.
40:21 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,
40:31 distinguishing between a physical aggression and horseplay,
40:34 taking in those considerations and factors,
40:37 a horseplay being a level one, they would not have to follow the
40:40 progressionary 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
40:49 still be able to, you know,
40:50 elicit a disciplinary consequence might be the action.
40:53 Sometimes there’s variables when it comes to a thousand
40:56 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
41:09 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,
41:17 and we just want to make sure that we’re trying to just provide
41:20 them as met tools in this toolbox.
41:22 So horseplay might be an option for that one, sir. It might not
41:26 be.
41:26 Just kind of a thought of mine.
41:28 I appreciate that, and like I said, I support these changes.
41:32 My only addition would be just having the board’s consideration
41:37 to give a little flexibility to elementary school principals.
41:42 See, and where you’re saying flexibility, I’m the exact opposite.
41:44 I’m going to say it, and I’ve said it before, because I think
41:47 this is what leads to inconsistencies,
41:48 and it ends up with I think a lot of our risk ratio.
41:51 Having a plethora of options for an offense that’s committed, it’s
41:56 like, well, wait a minute.
41:56 So you can have an offense committed to level one, and then you
42:01 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
42:06 suspend you, or I’m using – I’m paraphrasing.
42:07 Maybe level two, not level one.
42:09 So I’m like this is where I think the inconsistency leads to
42:13 confusion,
42:13 because like you said with your teacher situation or your
42:17 principal, maybe she’s miscoding it.
42:19 It’s something where you’re like, okay, this is – but I know
42:21 that’s a huge undertaking.
42:22 So just for the record, I’ve said it multiple times, I would
42:26 love to see us look at some of the other districts
42:27 that line item list the offense and the consequence.
42:31 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,
42:39 right?
42:39 With that, if we’re moving towards that, we just need direction,
42:44 because it will take a big undertaking, which we can do.
42:47 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
42:58 level in order to do the whole book.
42:59 And I know some community members as well as some board members
43:02 have expressed that they would like to see us move
43:04 to a total level system, which in some cases will tie hands,
43:09 because it says this.
43:11 So we just need to know are we moving in that direction for next
43:17 year, not for ‘26-‘27, but for ‘27-‘28,
43:20 because it will take a year of us to get it right and having the
43:24 committee.
43:24 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
43:33 this as well?
43:33 Community, yes.
43:34 Oh, community, sorry.
43:35 Yes, community.
43:36 Individuals.
43:37 I won’t be here next year, but my recommendation would be no,
43:41 because I think –
43:41 You’ll be part of our committee next year.
43:43 Sure, sure.
43:44 Community discipline committee.
43:46 Insider trading.
43:48 Two months out of there.
43:49 So I think I’m going to be busy.
43:52 But I think there is a level of discretion that principals need
44:00 to have, because they know their students
44:01 and know the best way that they can deal with them on their
44:05 campus, and because campuses are different.
44:06 Going back to this – so, I mean, I don’t think we’re about to
44:12 give Pam Dampier a heart attack.
44:15 Let’s not do that.
44:16 She does a good job.
44:17 So 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.
44:27 So a principal could say, for the next three days, you guys, you
44:33 know – or they could say, okay, you’ve been good,
44:35 and now we’re going to – I’m not seeing anything that would
44:38 prove that puts a prescribed amount of time for it.
44:42 Because I even had the hypothetical.
44:44 I’m like, what if you have a brother and sister, which is
44:47 totally likely to happen, having some physical aggression
44:50 on a school campus, how are you going to have a stay away
44:53 contract for that?
44:53 But, I mean, it’s in there.
44:55 You’ve got to do it.
44:56 But it’s got to be within reason.
44:58 I think this is – the change that we’re being asked to look at
45:02 is to make it consistent with inciting.
45:04 I certainly don’t want someone who’s actually the one – we don’t
45:08 want the inciting to happen.
45:09 We don’t want the person who’s actually doing 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.
45:19 And considering the flexibility that principals have with the
45:22 stay away contract, I think it’s a good idea to put it where it
45:28 is.
45:28 So the direction – oh, sorry.
45:30 No, no, no.
45:32 How do you guys feel?
45:33 Is there a direction to go ahead and move forward with the
45:38 recommended change?
45:39 I think there’s enough consensus on the board.
45:42 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
45:49 pace, and I’m okay with that.
45:50 Should I order lunch for everybody and go through these one by
45:54 time?
45:54 Or are you guys –
45:55 Just take a 20-minute break and go get something across the way.
45:58 So you guys want to go line by line all the way through this?
46:01 Oh, is there any way we go faster on that?
46:03 I just – what I was saying is I thought we –
46:05 We only have two more, right?
46:07 So I will say –
46:08 Go through the yellows.
46:09 So with the recommended changes, I believe there’s 15-1, number
46:13 6.
46:13 15 total.
46:14 So the green are the ones that are coming from the DDWG, the
46:18 board group.
46:19 The yellow are the ones that would have been from district or
46:23 board member discretion.
46:25 So, yeah, we’re a little under halfway through.
46:28 So speaking of Ms. Pam, and she said that if you guys wanted to
46:31 look at it and make any recommendations,
46:32 we can go line by line, whatever you guys want to do.
46:34 I just didn’t know if we needed to – we’ve got a lot more to go.
46:37 You know what I mean?
46:38 I just wanted to know about the lunch.
46:39 I’m okay with saying, hey, if you guys –
46:42 Mr. Susan, do you need the lunch break?
46:43 No.
46:44 Can we go like 20 more minutes and then take a lunch break?
46:46 Listen, 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 Mr. Susan, for the record, I don’t anticipate having very many
46:53 more 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 Absolutely.
47:01 I don’t miss meals.
47:02 But if we can go through the student code of conduct part and
47:05 then take a lunch break before we do the rest, that’s a good
47:07 idea.
47:07 All right.
47:08 And not to jinx myself, I think some of them should be kind of
47:11 straightforward moving forward.
47:12 I just said M&M’s.
47:13 We’ll see.
47:15 All right.
47:16 So we’re going to go ahead and move down to number seven.
47:19 So verbal confrontation, again, already existing student
47:24 behavior.
47:24 It was just asked by the committee to be a little bit more
47:27 clarity to it.
47:28 So if you see what’s struck through, it used to say engaging in
47:33 behavior that provokes, promotes, or encourages hostility or
47:37 disruption.
47:37 They asked was that towards a staff member, is that towards a
47:40 student?
47:40 We’ve said the idea that’s always towards student.
47:42 If there’s something like this happening to a staff member, that
47:45 would probably be coded way differently.
47:47 So all we did was just add the word student or students in front
47:51 of engaging.
47:51 And that would just be us updating the language in the student
47:54 code of conduct.
47:54 Oh, should that – if that was the intent, should it say towards
47:58 other students?
47:59 Because this – if I read it, what I’m looking at is it’s the
48:02 students doing it.
48:03 I don’t know why we would be addressing discipline on staff in
48:06 the student code of conduct.
48:07 But that’s what – to me, that didn’t say – that doesn’t read
48:12 what you were intending.
48:13 Yeah, we can add language that says towards –
48:17 At the risk of being redundant.
48:19 Yeah, we can figure out how to wordsmith that.
48:21 So the idea of just adding clarity that this would be student
48:25 towards student when it comes to verbal confrontation.
48:28 Yeah.
48:29 Okay.
48:30 Yeah, we can definitely –
48:31 Or just adding towards other students or –
48:33 Towards other students.
48:34 At the end, yeah, rather than doing it again.
48:36 Okay, now we can make a quick fix on that.
48:38 Oh, well, that’s true.
48:39 That’s true.
48:40 Well, but he said teachers.
48:42 What if it was towards other people, others?
48:44 It could be a janitor.
48:45 Or a volunteer.
48:46 I don’t know where that goes.
48:47 Yeah, just leave it, I think, the way that it is.
48:49 Because I think it just – it covers the fact that if they
48:52 engage in a behavior that provokes, promotes, or encourages –
48:54 What about a school board member?
48:55 You go to school and they get a disrespect to you.
48:57 Yeah, I think that’s the way it is.
48:59 If you say towards other students and then it –
49:01 I think if it walks a line that it seems to be more than just a
49:05 verbal confrontation and it’s roaming into that threat
49:08 intimidation,
49:09 then obviously there’s a code that would fit that that’s already
49:12 built in assessor.
49:12 Absolutely.
49:13 All right, we’re good.
49:15 Okay, so don’t change it.
49:17 Don’t change it.
49:18 Okay.
49:19 All right, we’re rolling.
49:20 Number eight, this was brought up in sessions one and two.
49:23 This is our tobacco, our TBC code.
49:25 This comes from the state of Florida.
49:28 Initially the recommendation of the work group was to add
49:32 educational courses in providing civil citations.
49:35 Their recommendation was to add some type of educational course
49:41 online in lieu of an ISS.
49:42 And then the second citation would again include an educational
49:47 course in public service.
49:48 Based on our kind of look at that, we believe that adding a
49:53 corrective action of a tobacco citation in addition to what we
49:59 have,
49:59 so if you look at our tobacco right now, you have a one to three,
50:03 then a four to five, then up to a ten day.
50:05 We’d simply be adding tobacco citation as one of the required
50:10 actions schools must take for the first tobacco offense.
50:15 Why take out the public service portion of it?
50:18 I mean, my understanding is that what you’re going to do is
50:22 remove that part of it or no?
50:23 So the tobacco citation, depending on what citation we do, we
50:29 are working with district security
50:32 and looking what that would look like because, yes, the tobacco
50:36 citation can be usually appeased through either a course,
50:39 through public service, when paying the fine, and it would
50:44 actually be paid through the clerk of courts.
50:46 What this was was saying working with a third party that they
50:52 would have to, instead of them being suspended or an ISS,
50:56 they would be assigned, you have to take this educational course
51:00 based on the citation.
51:01 So the idea was to, their idea was to basically not have it be
51:06 so punitive but more of an educational type of,
51:09 here are the negative effects of tobacco use and have that be a
51:13 required action.
51:14 What we’re saying is that we would keep how we have it right now
51:17 with the suspensions.
51:18 We would just add that the tobacco citation be part of the
51:22 required corrective action for the first offense.
51:25 And district security weighed in on this. This would be issued
51:28 from the sheriff or the police municipality.
51:29 Is that correct? Am I understanding that correctly?
51:32 We have met twice with Major Klein and we’ve been collaboratively
51:38 looking at the courses and there is a way that we can do this.
51:41 He just confirmed it last week. And I’m going to have a plan to
51:46 propose to you guys hopefully after spring break.
51:49 I’m going to review it with Dr. Rendell next week, an outline of
51:53 what this will look like.
51:54 But we have been meeting, we’ve met twice and this will be a
52:00 part of, in the fall.
52:02 Okay.
52:05 So we think that’s important for them to take, it will be a
52:08 course.
52:08 No, I agree.
52:09 So just to make sure we’re not degrading any of the nicotine
52:13 charges, it’s just that we’re going to add this supplemental
52:15 piece and then you’re asking are we going to add the actual
52:17 public service.
52:18 I like the public service part of it, like part of it, instead
52:21 of in schools.
52:21 Schools cleaned up.
52:22 Yeah, I’m like if they don’t have ISS then that’s probably a
52:25 prime opportunity to maybe, they don’t have space in the school
52:28 for ISS, why not look at that as.
52:29 It’s actually out of school, our code of conduct for tobacco if
52:33 you look on page 24, it’s out of school.
52:35 Is it?
52:36 So the committee was asking for ISS or this home course instead
52:40 of that and the staff came back to them and said no we’re not
52:43 going to do that but we’ll add the citation which if they want
52:46 to pay off the citation they have to take the course.
52:48 So you can add the public service.
52:49 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 opinion.
52:58 Send them on the sheriff’s work crew.
53:00 No, no, no, no, no.
53:02 The citation does that and we’re not doing it.
53:04 That’s how they pay off the citation.
53:07 I just couldn’t do that with a 16 year old.
53:08 Defense of driving for traffic tickets.
53:10 I wonder if the sheriff would want to set up something.
53:12 It looks kind of like that star program he used to have I think.
53:15 I think you can say.
53:16 Sorry we’re going in the weeds.
53:18 That’s it.
53:21 Next up.
53:22 We’re good.
53:24 All right.
53:26 We’re in yellow folks.
53:27 Number nine.
53:28 This is going to be one of the district recommendations moving
53:33 forward.
53:33 This would be technically a revision of what was already
53:37 actually no this would be a new one.
53:39 Taunting and teasing.
53:41 You’re going to see some of the impact on this has to do with
53:45 things that don’t rise to level of bullying harassment.
53:48 So adding a new taunting or teasing code to our level two of
53:51 corrective actions for elementary and secondary.
53:55 The definition would read as follows.
53:57 Making fun of mocking or attempting to provoke or irritate
54:01 provoking behavior and or persistent annoyances.
54:04 This does not rise to a level of definition of bullying or
54:08 harassment.
54:08 So what we have seen is there’s been some schools that say, OK,
54:12 it does not meet the criteria of bullying harassment,
54:15 but the actions of the student were still unacceptable.
54:18 And sometimes they felt that they didn’t know properly what to
54:21 code something.
54:22 So the idea was to try to give them something to say, OK, it
54:26 might not meet the criteria of this assessor,
54:28 but here’s something that you would be able to code it that
54:32 would still provide a corrective action for that incident.
54:35 All right.
54:40 All right. Ten and eleven are kind of sisters of one another.
54:43 So these are addition of other misconduct code.
54:48 This would be new to level two in both our elementary and
54:53 secondary.
54:54 The code would be as follows. Any other act of misconduct that
54:57 is more serious harm for is more disruptive example of any
55:01 offenses described in level one,
55:02 which may interfere with the orderly operation of school or
55:06 school activity and cannot be coded as another level two offense.
55:09 The idea of saying, OK, we understand that this is totally not a
55:13 level two,
55:13 but it really doesn’t really meet the idea of a level one either
55:18 or level three.
55:19 So the idea was to give schools the ability to still code
55:23 something for unacceptable behavior.
55:25 And you’d see that’s also for eleven. So number ten for other
55:29 misconduct would be in for our level two ones for an incident
55:33 that doesn’t really fit in the means of our current code of
55:37 student conduct.
55:37 And number eleven would be adding to the level three version of
55:41 that.
55:41 Dr. Renee, are you good with this? Everybody good? This
55:45 addresses the creativity of our students.
55:46 Yep. Yep. Yes. All right. We’re good. Well, and a lot of times
55:52 in other districts, you might see this. Well, I’m sorry. It’s OK.
55:55 Twelve. There you go. Keep going down. There we go. All right.
55:59 Number twelve sexting.
56:00 It is a current behavior infraction that we already have.
56:04 This would just be an update on the language itself, believing
56:09 that just really just more encompasses exactly what sexting is.
56:13 Anything that does not rise to the level of an S.X.H. or sexual
56:17 harassment defined by the state would then be should be coded as
56:21 sexting.
56:21 So this is just an update to that language itself. Everybody
56:25 good? Hang on, because I had a question about this.
56:27 I want to make sure. All right. It looked pretty good.
56:34 OK, good. Yes, I’m good. We’re good, Justin. Thank you. All
56:39 right. Number thirteen, this is going to be a replacement.
56:41 So this would be replacing our current incident code of pants
56:46 scene, which is a fun one.
56:48 The new name for pants scene, we would we would encode that one
56:52 and we would create a new one called indecent exposure of self
56:55 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 pulled down, you know,
57:04 pants or whatnot.
57:04 Not meaning it in any type of sexual act or misconduct. This one
57:08 would be actually saying you intensely did something in order to
57:13 cause that person’s undergarments or body parts to be exposed,
57:17 but would not reach the level of a sexual offense defined by the
57:20 state of Florida.
57:21 Cessar. I’m good with it. Sounds good. We’re good. All right.
57:26 Getting there. Number fourteen, public display of affection PDA.
57:31 Again, this is a current infraction. It is just a simple, more
57:36 updated definition of it.
57:37 Just to be a little bit more concise. We felt that I was kind of
57:42 all over the place with it.
57:43 So it’s just just adding a little bit more clarity to an
57:46 existing definition. I’m good. You guys good? I’m good.
57:50 Right. And number fifteen. Number fifteen is an update to policy
57:55 fifty five twenty of disorder and demonstration school for
58:00 policy fifty five twenty.
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
58:10 according to this code and student conduct, student behavior,
58:12 incident coding for such occurrences, depending on severity,
58:15 shall be coded as gross and subordination.
58:17 Number one twenty seven. Leaving campus without permission. Zero
58:21 thirty three or disruption on campus DOC, which is a Cessar
58:26 state code.
58:27 This provides a little flexibility for the administrator based
58:31 on the severity of what’s happening on their campus.
58:34 This would simply be us updating policy fifty five twenty and
58:40 just training administrators on process and procedure of this.
58:45 I’m fine with it. Is this going to possibly be changed depending
58:49 on the board’s conversation around.
58:52 Mr. Ampere was mentioned in that. Yeah. We’re going to talk
58:55 about this in a little bit.
58:56 But as far as us coding in the code of student conduct, the
59:02 consequences, the level gross and subordination and leaving
59:06 campus are those level three and disruption on campus is level
59:09 four.
59:09 So it does give the principal flexibility. And we didn’t have
59:13 anything previously in the code of student conduct.
59:16 So I feel like it’s very important that we have some direction.
59:19 So even if the policy does change, it does not impact the, you
59:25 know, the coding of what those consequences should be.
59:28 So where is this language going? This language is actually going
59:32 to be in the code of student conduct.
59:33 It’s going to be in the body of it, ma’am. Is it already in the
59:37 red line? It should be in the red line.
59:38 Yes, ma’am. Under? I can find it for you. Consequences?
59:53 I have too many papers. It should be on the red line page of
59:58 page 30 under disruption and demonstrations, school board policy
1:00:03 5520.
1:00:03 So you’ll see a small excerpt of it and then the policies will
1:00:07 be hyperlinked. This way when we’re ever having to do changes in
1:00:11 policy, we’re not always having to go dig through and change.
1:00:14 So the idea is giving kind of just an overview of that policy
1:00:18 and then hyperlinking it so that way the community always has
1:00:22 the most current version of that policy.
1:00:24 Okay. So everything else is kind of – so basically depending on
1:00:31 what the level of the demonstration, what it caused, whatever is
1:00:37 where.
1:00:37 So then it would be gross insubordination. It would go to the
1:00:41 table and charts that have the level three. Okay.
1:00:43 Yes, ma’am. So it’s getting its own little spot. I’m good with
1:00:48 that.
1:00:48 Okay. And that actually concludes it. Thank you so much for your
1:00:55 time. Did you guys want to take a real quick break?
1:00:58 Absolutely. We just have people that are asking that question.
1:01:08 So it would entail a lot of work.
1:01:10 That’s going to be the board for the following year to go to a
1:01:16 system like this. I don’t know. I only heard Ms. Wright talk
1:01:19 about that, so I don’t know.
1:01:21 I mean that’s a board’s decision. Can we discuss it and then
1:01:25 give direction based upon it?
1:01:26 We can add that to a further workshop. That’s what I was going
1:01:30 to say. Maybe at the next workshop we can talk about it.
1:01:32 2728 work that would be done next year.
1:01:35 And if we’re going to have that conversation because it will
1:01:39 take more than just the November to March process.
1:01:42 Can I suggest that if there are districts who have a model like
1:01:46 that, there are fantastic districts that we talk to.
1:01:52 It takes at least a year to make sure that it’s done and it’s
1:01:55 done correctly because we want to do it right.
1:01:57 We don’t want to have stuff. Appreciate that. I think that would
1:02:01 make more sense.
1:02:01 Does that give you the guidance you need? Yes. Thank you so much.
1:02:06 Appreciate it.
1:02:06 I guess we’re going to take a break for roughly 30 minutes to
1:02:09 grab something to eat. Use the restroom and go.
1:02:10 It’s 12.20, so what time do you want us back? 12.50.
1:02:14 Okay.
1:02:32 Thank you.
1:03:01 You’re welcome.
1:03:59 Thank you.
1:04:28 You’re welcome.
1:31:57 .