Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Conduct Social Media topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Duval board reviews revisions to employee social media and staff-student communications policies
Summary
Board members and staff debated proposed changes to policies 6.83 and 6.84 that remove detailed ‘dos and don’ts’ for employee social media and pivot enforcement to Florida professional-conduct rules; staff were directed to return a revised packet with human-resources input and training details.
The Duval County School Board on Friday discussed revisions to policy 6.83 (employee professional conduct) and 6.84 (communications with students and parents), with staff saying the drafts strip prescriptive social‑media rules and instead reference Florida’s principles of professional conduct and the district’s acceptable‑use procedures.
Board members and attorneys said the change is intended to align district policy with state law and court precedent while preserving the district’s ability to discipline conduct that interferes with school operations. Staff said existing training already highlights the Florida code of ethics and the state rules on professional conduct in its annual code‑of‑ethics and other trainings.
Presenters told the board they removed a prescriptive checklist of permitted and prohibited posts and instead pointed employees to the Florida Department of Education’s principles of professional conduct. A district staff member said the policy continues to signal that violations may lead to disciplinary action, including termination, and that the acceptable‑use procedure and district‑approved applications remain the expectation for electronic communications with students.
Board members pressed for clarity on employee free‑speech rights, how the policy would be applied to off‑duty speech, and how staff will be trained to identify when speech impairs district operations. The board’s general counsel and an attorney advising the district explained that federal case law (Pickering v. Board of Education and Garcetti v. Ceballos) and subsequent decisions guide how courts balance public‑employee speech rights against employers’ interest in efficient operations, and advised leaving the policy text aligned to statutory language rather than adding detailed examples that could create legal risk.
On communications with students and parents, staff said the draft narrows direct‑communication rules to require district‑approved apps and, when necessary in emergency situations, permit use of personal devices but only through district applications. The draft removes long lists of examples about texting and other direct contacts and instead emphasizes that employees must use district applications for official communications.
The board asked human resources to review the draft language and confirm how the Florida rules are presented in employee training; staff confirmed the Florida code of ethics and the principles of professional conduct already appear in annual trainings and other required courses.
Direction: The board moved the item forward for additional edits and asked staff to return with a revised packet, including human‑resources input and the district’s training and acceptable‑use procedures, at the next scheduled policy review (staff indicated the item will move forward on May 6 for presenters to respond). No formal action or vote was taken at this meeting.
