Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Code Of Conduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flagler Schools opens public review of student code of conduct with May posting, July final vote planned
Summary
District staff presented a timeline March 25 for updating the student code of conduct. The process includes stakeholder outreach, an informational workshop in April, a posting for public comment at the May 27 meeting and a planned final vote on July 22.
Get email alerts on the Education Code Of Conduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District staff on March 25 outlined the Flagler County School District’s timeline and outreach plan to update the student code of conduct, a routine but legally important process that clarifies offenses, consequences and procedures for students and staff.
Doug Glasgow, who led the presentation, told the board the update is an annual process to ensure compliance with current law and to address emerging issues such as vaping and cyberbullying. He said the schedule calls for an informational workshop in April, an agenda posting for public review at the May 27 board meeting and a formal public comment posting period that will meet statutory requirements; staff said they plan a 60‑day public comment window even though state statute requires 30 days. If the schedule proceeds as planned, staff said the board would consider final adoption on July 22.
Glasgow said the district is using a Neola update process this year; changes prompted by Neola will be specifically annotated in materials so stakeholders can see whether a proposed change comes from Neola (model policy) or from local district recommendations. Staff described multiple channels for public input already in use: a Google form posted on the district website, social media outreach, school site councils (SAC), principal leadership meetings, and direct outreach to deans and other school staff.
Board members asked whether the same outreach protocol has been effective in prior years; Glasgow said staff typically advertises widely and provides multiple opportunities for input and that, in his experience, stakeholders who want to comment have ample chances to do so. Board members also asked about how the district will align any change to the code with its disciplinary matrix; staff said the code is the foundational document and matrix adjustments follow after offenses are finalized, typically in the fall following code adoption.
Next steps identified at the workshop include one‑on‑one meetings between staff and board members for individual feedback, scheduled school and dean meetings for stakeholder input, and assembly of a consolidated draft for board review in the April information session. The district expects to bring a legally posted draft for public comment at the May 27 meeting and return with a final recommended version for a July 22 vote if no legal or process issues arise.

