Board reviews first read of updated student code of conduct, adds new "persistently dangerous" section and changes device rules

At its May 5 meeting the New Kent County School Board received a first read of proposed updates to the district's code of conduct, which staff said had been drafted by a committee including teachers, parents, administrators and a student representative.

Assistant principal and division safety lead Stephanie Sutton, presenting the revisions, told the board the updated state guidance adds a new section titled "persistently dangerous behavior," and that the committee proposes assigning broader discipline-level ranges for some offenses so administrators have discretion to respond to severity and repeat incidents. "The next few slides will illustrate the levels of discipline ... they range from level 1 ... up to level 5, which ... includes long-term suspensions of more than 10 consecutive days," Sutton said.

Proposed edits would change wording for several items to align with state reporting: for example, the committee recommends renaming "shoving, pushing, striking a student with no visible injury" to "minor physical altercation with no injury." The committee also proposed raising the possible discipline range for items such as refusal to comply with staff directions and reckless behavior that creates injury risk.

On electronic devices, the committee recommended two specific changes: add field trips to the list of times cell phones and wireless earbuds are prohibited, and change the first-offense secondary consequence wording so that "the teacher contacts the guardian confidentially and notifies them that the device is now securely stored in the main office." Sutton reported device-related counts: 215 violations at the middle school involving 140 students and 490 violations at the high school involving 347 students.

Board members raised concerns about broad discipline ranges and asked for clearer guidance so identical infractions would not receive inconsistent penalties. "Has the state provided any guideline so that we don't find ourselves in a situation where two different students, same infraction, are given two different levels?" asked a board member. Sutton said state guidance lists offenses but not levels; staff described a local cross-check process among administrators to promote consistency and suggested the code committee could tighten level ranges before final adoption.

The proposed code revisions were presented as a first read and will return in June for board action. Board members suggested the committee consider narrowing some 1'to'5 ranges in the persistently dangerous section and provide examples or nonexclusive lists where language could be vague.