Board hears draft updates to student code of conduct; staff to require restorative practices and create student conduct office

Montgomery County Public Schools officials outlined proposed changes to the district’s student code of conduct on May 8, emphasizing clearer tiers of response for misconduct, mandatory reentry meetings after suspensions and an expanded role for restorative practices. The board and staff said the goal is to increase consistency, transparency and safety while preserving developmentally appropriate responses.

Peter Moran, chief of school leadership, told trustees the update was prompted by community feedback calling for clearer expectations and better monitoring. The proposed revision tightens the five‑level intervention matrix used to match responses to misconduct: staff would more narrowly define which incidents rise to higher tiers (suspension or superintendent‑level review) and which remain within teacher or principal responses. Moran said that acts such as attacks on staff, bomb threats, distribution of controlled substances and the inappropriate posted distribution of private material are explicitly elevated to higher levels to reduce variance in responses between schools.

The proposal also makes restorative practices a required element of the disciplinary continuum rather than an optional strategy. Moran described required “reentry plans” and intake meetings for students and families returning from suspension; those meetings are intended to connect students to supports, document how learning loss will be mitigated and set expectations for repair and reentry. The superintendent’s FY2026 operating budget would create an Office of Student Conduct and Appeals to review school actions, support consistent application of policy, and build cross‑functional teams to help with differentiated school needs.

Board members asked for plain‑language summaries and stronger safeguards to reduce subjectivity. Trustees including Brenda Wolf and Natalie Zimmerman sought firmer definitions for terms such as “excessive disruptive talking” and “intent to harm,” and asked how monitoring will detect disproportionate impacts on Black and Latino students. Moran and Dr. Taylor said the district will train principals and staff, provide standardized referral processes, and produce more frequent discipline data reports; staff suggested quarterly or weekly internal reviews and committed to exploring regular public reporting of suspensions and disproportionality metrics.

Multiple public commenters during the hearing urged the district to prioritize restorative practices, expand mental‑health supports and limit use of uniformed, armed officers in schools; some speakers pressed for the CEO (school resource officer) program to be evaluated — the board later adopted a resolution requiring such an evaluation. The staff presentation included commitments to training for all school staff, age‑appropriate communication materials for families and students, and a toolkit for principals to use at back‑to‑school events.

Trustees asked staff to return with more detailed guidance materials, clearer definitions that would reduce administrative discretion in day‑to‑day implementation, and a monitoring plan with timelines and data points the board can review. Dr. Taylor said she supports annual board review of student conduct data and indicated the district will take steps to make reporting more transparent and frequent.

No final change to the code of conduct was adopted May 8; staff will continue the rollout, prepare training and develop public materials and monitoring processes for the board to review.