Board reviews rewritten Code of Student Conduct with level‑by‑level discipline guide, mandatory actions and implementation plan

Cynthia Lugo Hampton, director of student conduct, presented a comprehensive revision of Marion County’s Code of Student Conduct at the June 19 work session, reorganizing the document to make discipline expectations clearer, adding a level‑based discipline reference guide and laying out a district implementation plan for training and rollout.

Lugo Hampton said the update was guided by Florida statute 1006.07 and by a committee made up of 42 volunteers—school administrators, counselors, district staff and association representatives—who met weekly to rewrite offense definitions, consequences and guidance. ‘‘This is the heart of the code, student discipline,’’ she said, describing a new quick reference guide that lists an offense title, an offense definition, level‑by‑level severity descriptions and a column for mandatory and possible corrective actions.

Major changes: the revised code moves discipline earlier in the document so readers can find it quickly; it defines offenses at four levels (1–4) and explains how the same behavior escalates across levels; it requires parent contact and an intervention strategy at all levels and adds mandatory actions for safety‑related offenses, including a recommendation for alternative placement or expulsion with services for specified level‑3 and level‑4 safety violations. The code distinguishes mandatory actions (what must be done) from possible corrective actions (options administrators may use) to preserve professional discretion while promoting consistency. The district also created a concise administrative reference manual for school leaders, and an elementary version of the code that is developmentally adjusted.

Board members raised detailed implementation questions. Several asked for more precise language about alternative‑placement durations (the committee advocated a standard approach—commonly the current quarter plus one—but members pointed out that ‘‘45 days’’ and ‘‘quarter plus one’’ are not synonymous and asked staff to tighten the drafting for clarity). Members also asked for protections for students who self‑report incidents of sexual misconduct and whether sibling interventions should be handled differently; staff agreed to take both items back to the committee for further drafting. Dr. Brewer and staff outlined a phased training plan beginning at the district leadership summit, with assistant‑principal and dean training and follow‑up sessions for school rollout and a public information package for families.

What’s next: Staff will refine language on alternative‑placement duration, clarify amnesty/self‑report provisions to address concerns raised by board members, prepare a short parent/student one‑pager and create a communication and training schedule for principals, deans and teachers before the 2025–26 school year starts. The board scheduled a follow‑up work session to review any targeted changes requested by members.

Ending: The rewritten Code of Student Conduct is designed to make discipline decisions more consistent and transparent while keeping room for school‑level judgment and emphasizing restorative interventions. The board signaled broad support but requested specific clarifications on alternative‑placement timing and on handling of self‑reporting and sibling incidents before final board adoption.