Brevard board reviews sweeping updates to student code of conduct; staff to return with refinements

Brevard County School Board members on March 11 reviewed a broad package of proposed changes to the district's student code of conduct and gave staff direction to refine several items and return with recommended language for the April board agenda and a public hearing in April.

The proposed revisions were developed by a district discipline work group that met four times from October through February and included representatives from board members, the Brevard Federation of Teachers, the Brevard Association of School Administrators, student advisory groups, school resource officers and community members. "We are bringing it forward in March to the school board for recommendations," staff presenter said, adding they would seek a public hearing in April.

Why it matters: The draft rewrites aim to reduce coding confusion for incidents, set clearer expectations for attendance and parent notification, address new technologies such as artificial intelligence and smart glasses, clarify how threats are recorded under state definitions, and add options for handling data-theft devices described in the meeting as "flippers." Board members and staff repeatedly emphasized the need for consistency across schools and legal review before final adoption.

What staff presented

- Process and timeline: Mrs. Dampier, who introduced the work group's package, said the discipline work group solicited stakeholder feedback and returned successive drafts; the group met four times and included student voice from the superintendent's student advisory council.

- Code restructuring and examples: Director of Student Services Mr. Armstrong described the spreadsheet-format recommendations. He said the group proposed collapsing multiple physical-aggression incident codes into simplified definitions. In his words, the recommended language for the new physical-aggression entry would read: "Individuals participating in a mutual or non mutual and or aggressive physical contact with aggressive intent towards another student or school board employee resulting in no injury." Armstrong said the change is intended to reduce duplication and data confusion.

- Threats and state alignment: Staff recommended removing a local code for "threat to school staff and student" and coding such incidents under the state-defined TRE (threat and intimidation) to align with the Office of Safe Schools guidance.

- Student supports and tiers: The proposals move functional behavior assessments (FBA) and behavior intervention plans (BIP) to higher tiers (level 3) so that lower-level incidents use less-intensive interventions. Staff also proposed adding a new, lower-tier "behavior plan" corrective action to provide earlier, collaborative interventions.

- Restorative language: Per Department of Education guidance cited by staff, the draft removes language that listed restorative practices as a named corrective action; staff said schools would retain other corrective tools but would not list restorative practice as a separate authorized corrective action in the code.

- Technology and academic integrity: The package includes artifact guidance on the responsible use of artificial intelligence in schools and a policy update for wireless communication devices (WCD) to explicitly reference smart glasses and similar wearables. Smart glasses use would be coded under existing electronic-telecommunication-device misuse rules.

- Data-theft device ("flipper") and electronic privacy: Board members raised a recent local incident involving a device that can capture nearby personal data. Members asked staff and district security to draft a new incident code that would cover devices intended to capture personal or financial data; the board suggested that the code would likely be treated at a high level (secondary: level 5; elementary: level 4) and directed legal staff to advise on lawful search, seizure and evidence preservation procedures before staff return with final language.

- Attendance changes: The draft adds a uniform timeframe for parent reporting: absences must be reported within 48 hours (two days) for an absence to be excused. For personal illness, staff proposed that medical evidence may be required when absences exceed five consecutive days. Board members asked staff to return with language clarifying caps or limits on parent-excused absences and to propose specific notice language that warns families that repeated unexcused absence could lead to referral to juvenile court processes.

- Alternative learning centers and placement guidance: Staff noted a potential move away from brick-and-mortar Alternative Learning Centers (ALCs) toward school-based stipulation conduct agreements or online learning options. Staff said recommendations for specific incident-level placements (level 4 vs. level 5) would depend on board direction.

Board discussion and direction

Board members focused on three cross-cutting themes: clarity of definitions, consistency in consequences across schools, and legal risks.

- Level 5 offenses and consistency: Several members urged that level 5 violations be reserved for the most serious, nonnegotiable, expellable offenses so principals and families clearly understand the consequences. "One of the ways to really clear it up is that if level 5 happens, level 5 means that is an expelable offense," Board member Ms. Campbell said. Other members argued some offenses (for example, false accusation against staff or certain harassment entries) should remain at level 4 to preserve administrator discretion for age and context.

- False allegations: The board directed staff to draft a refined entry for false accusations against staff, with a suggested major/minor or criminal/noncriminal distinction so that malicious, criminal false allegations can be treated more severely but noncriminal or ambiguous reports do not automatically trigger the highest penalty.

- Reporting by witnesses: Several board members discussed a "failure to report" entry that currently references criminal offenses (weapons, firearms, drugs). Members asked legal staff to analyze whether and how that rule can be broadened (for example, to cover level-3 or higher serious offenses) without raising constitutional or other legal issues; counsel warned that "trying to compel that speech from a student ... could raise constitutional issues," and staff agreed to research legal limits before changing the code.

- Electronic devices and data privacy: The board asked district security, legal staff and schools to propose a clear, enforceable code that covers devices intended to steal or exfiltrate personal data. Members asked staff to confirm whether confiscation and forensic review would require law-enforcement involvement or a warrant and requested a recommended chain-of-custody procedure for such devices.

- Vaping and tobacco: Members described vaping as an ongoing problem and asked staff to strengthen deterrents. The board discussed raising penalties for repeated offenses, testing detector sensitivity, piloting wand searches or other detection at select schools, and coordinating with municipal partners on citations. Staff agreed to return with data on the number of tobacco/vape incidents and recommended enforcement steps.

- Cell phones: Several members said the tiered consequences for repeated cell-phone violations lack teeth. One board member proposed moving the current third-offense penalty earlier in the progression and increasing out-of-school suspension days for repeat offenses; staff will return with options and national/district comparisons.

Decisions and next steps

No formal vote was taken during the work session. Instead the board provided multiple directions to staff: - Staff should return with refined draft language addressing the physical-aggression definitions, false-accusation major/minor language, the proposed code for data-theft devices, WCD language for smart glasses, and attendance-excuse caps and notice language. (Direction recorded during the meeting.) - Legal and security staff should advise whether and how district personnel may lawfully confiscate and examine suspect electronic devices and whether students'use of such devices can be defined and enforced as proposed. (Direction recorded.) - Staff will compile enforcement data and run reports to show how the district currently applies consequences for the same offense across schools, and will return by the April 8 board meeting with the updated draft for board consideration and with the recommendation for a public hearing in April. (Direction recorded.)

What's next

Staff said they will send the draft changes and artifacts to board members, incorporate the directions taken during the March 11 session, and place the revised code on the April 8 agenda with a recommendation for a public hearing. Several members urged district training and scenario-based principal professional development before the changes go into effect so building leaders enforce new language consistently.

Ending

Board members praised the work group for its stakeholder process and asked staff to return with the requested legal analyses, incident counts and proposed wording so the board can consider final approval after the April public hearing.