Manassas Park schools update code of conduct to reflect state cyberbullying guidance and cellphone limits

Dr. Kristin Marbury, a member of the Manassas Park City Schools administrative staff, gave an overview of the division2025 6 code of conduct at a recent school board meeting and summarized two state-driven updates that the division has incorporated.
Marbury said the code of conduct is aligned with the Virginia Department of Education model guidance and with recent changes in Virginia law that affect how cyberbullying and student device possession are handled. "We make sure that our code of conduct each year is in alignment with that guidance document," she said.
Marbury described the documents tiered response framework: level 1 for classroom-managed incidents (seat changes, short conferences), level 2 for supports that keep students in class (check-ins, lunch interventions), level 3 for short-term removals (in-school or after-school consequences), level 4 for out-of-school suspensions where safety is a concern, and level 5 for the most serious incidents that require central-office review. She said the code differentiates elementary and secondary responses to account for developmental differences.
She told the board that Virginia law changed the definition of cyberbullying, and the divisions code now treats cyberbullying incidents using the same notification and investigation steps as other bullying, including 24-hour parent notification where applicable. On student devices she cited the governors Executive Order 33, now implemented in state law, which restricts student use of cell phones from first bell to last bell and provides that a student "cannot be suspended simply for having their device on them." Marbury said: "Simply for having their device on them, that's not something that we would, respond with an out of school suspension."
Marbury said the division has trained staff in de-escalation and classroom management (Conscious Classroom, beginning Safety Care) and uses SEL curriculum (RethinkEd at elementary; Second Step at secondary) to reduce reliance on punitive responses. She reported discipline contacts related to cell phones fell from 65 interactions last year to fewer than three so far in the current year.
The board asked several questions about the boundary between student free-speech activities and disruptive conduct; Marbury said expression is permitted so long as it does not disrupt school operations or make others feel unsafe. She invited board members to review the current code and submit feedback; staff said they will schedule a future work session to collect board input and stakeholder feedback.