OCPS staff present proposed changes to student-conduct code; board to consider final adoption at next meeting

District staff presented proposed revisions to Orange County Public Schools’ code of student conduct during a rule-development workshop Tuesday, including new definitions and reporting requirements for incidents classified as acts of hate, updated restitution language, and changes to the district’s cell-phone policy. Board members asked clarifying questions and requested minor wording edits; staff said the changes will be finalized for formal adoption at the board’s next meeting.

Why it matters: the proposed edits increase clarity about when incidents must be reported to the Florida Department of Education’s School Environmental Safety Incident Reporting system (CESSOR), change how the district describes and records acts motivated by protected characteristics, and adjust discipline and notification language. Those changes affect school administrators’ reporting obligations and parents’ notifications.

What staff proposed. Demiki Joyner, OCPS director of discipline, and Akiva Haynes, legal attorney supporting discipline, reviewed several specific revisions: the draft ties consequences for incidents that are determined to be acts of hate to Florida Administrative Code rule 6A-1.0017 (section 8(e)) and says level 2, 3 and 4 incidents that meet the state definition “may receive higher consequences and/or [be] escalated to a higher-level offense” and are required to be reported to the Florida Department of Education’s School Environmental Safety Incident Reporting system (CESSOR) and to law enforcement when appropriate. Joyner also summarized a revised parent-notification definition, replacing a prior reference to “hate speech” with the district’s definition of an “act of hate,” which the draft says can be based on speech, conduct or damage to property and must be reviewed with the OCPS Office of Legal Services for compliance.

Restitution and cell phones. The draft clarifies that if a student damages school or other property they may be required to pay restitution, that the obligation remains on the student’s discipline record until paid in full, and that payment plans can be arranged with the principal; the draft also allows community service “in lieu of cost” under conditions. Staff also identified a change to the wireless-device/cell-phone language to reflect state guidance restricting use during instructional time for younger students and to align district rules with recent statutory guidance; staff said the high-school applicability was clarified in the draft.

Board feedback and minor edits. Board members asked for precise wording changes. Member Salamanca objected to the draft’s use of the word “upgraded” when describing elevating an offense to a higher level and asked staff to use “escalated” (or another non-positively connoted term). Members also asked staff to add a hyperlink or explicit quote of the state’s definition (Fla. Admin. Code 6A-1.0017) in the draft so readers could compare the district’s internal definition and the state reporting definition; staff agreed to hyperlink the state regulation and confirmed the district definition may be broader in places (for example, the district’s draft includes categories such as gender identity/expression that differ slightly from the state list).

Next steps. Staff signaled they will make the minor wording edits, add the hyperlink to the state rule and return the finalized language for board adoption at the next regular meeting. No public comment was received at the workshop portion, and the rule-development session does not itself enact the change; formal adoption will be on a future agenda, according to staff.

Who said what (highlights): Demiki Joyner summarized reporting requirements and stated that “Level 4 offenses that are determined to be acts of hate ... are required to be reported to the Florida Department of Education’s School Environmental Safety Incident Reporting System,” language that staff said will be incorporated across the relevant offense levels. Member Salamanca requested replacing “upgraded” with “escalated” to avoid a misleading positive-sounding term. Legal staff confirmed the district must still meet state minimum reporting requirements while the district may use its own (broader) internal definitions.

Outcome at this meeting: rule development only; staff will finalize edits and bring the proposed code of student conduct back to the board for formal adoption at the next regular board meeting.