School board workshop reviews broad revisions to student code of conduct, highlights alternative school rules and counseling plans

At a school board workshop, staff presented proposed revisions to the district’s student code of conduct for the 2025–26 school year, and the board and administrators spent most of the session debating rules that govern students placed at the district’s alternative program (the academy), counseling for drug- and alcohol-related infractions and operational clarifications ranging from student account monitoring to bus instrument policies.

The review committee’s recommendations were presented by Mr. Leesburg, director of safety and security, who said the committee had drafted language across multiple sections and would review the document “page by page” for adoption at the next meeting. “Student accounts activities are subject to monitoring by both human and oversight and third party software. This monitoring applies to your account that is provided by the school district,” Mr. Leesburg said, describing new language added by the district’s MIS department that notes school-provided Google accounts are monitored “365 days, 24/7.”

The most contested item during the workshop involved the academy’s criteria for early return. Under the draft language the academy will continue to use a mix of attendance, behavior and academic measures for early-return determinations, but the document clarifies that the metric may be applied every nine weeks. The proposed academy language states students may have “no more than 3 discipline referrals or no more than 1 discipline referral resulting in out-of-school suspension (OSS) per 9 weeks” as part of the conditions for early return. Mr. Leesburg said that change came from a group of principals and academy representatives who met to reconsider how the academy operates and then recommended those edits to the code-of-conduct review committee.

Board members and administrators debated whether the nine-week cadence and the clarified referral counts would amount to extra leniency. Board member Mrs. Radomski said she was concerned the change could give students “more and more chances,” while another board member noted the academy serves students who often arrive with numerous prior referrals and that extended, small-group placement is sometimes necessary to stabilize behavior. John William, a committee member from Lake Placid Middle School, said the language had been presented to the committee and that the change was intended to clarify an approach that already existed in practice.

Administrators from the academy described the review process used before a student returns. Mr. Miller (academy staff) and school administrators said they convene review meetings each grading cycle to examine grades, attendance, discipline and work habits before approving an early return to a home school. Karen Hetzel, a high-school administrator who described a strict phone/confiscation policy at her building, said she has seen only one student returned from the academy this year and that the academy staff generally brings back only students they judge ready for reentry.

The committee also proposed to explicitly add alcohol- and drug-related counseling referrals for students at the academy. The draft says students who commit infractions involving alcohol or drugs will be referred for counseling; Mr. Leesburg said Tri County is the agency the district has used for students who test nonnegative on random drug tests and that Tri County had indicated it might be able to provide support for conduct-based referrals as well. However, staff and board members said the draft uses the word “referred” rather than “required” because of cost concerns and because parents sometimes refuse outside-provider services. District staff said they planned a follow-up meeting with Tri County in a couple of weeks to scope services and costs.

Several operational and language changes were reviewed across the code. Staff reported they will replace older phrasing such as “exceptional student programs” with the district’s ESE terminology, add language clarifying suspension/expulsion notification methods (delivery by U.S. mail, email, hand delivery or sent home with the student when parents have signed a form acknowledging receipt) and add specific examples of unauthorized items — the draft explicitly mentions Nerf guns and Orbeez guns under unauthorized objects. The draft also moves a note that students expelled for firearms or weapons (as defined in chapter 790 and related sections cited in the code) shall be referred for mental-health services closer to the possession/weapon sections so schools see the referral expectation in context.

Administrators raised a number of implementation questions in the workshop. Elementary principals asked that consequences be split or adjusted for elementary buildings that do not operate in-school suspension (ISS); the committee proposed classroom-exclusion services (CES) language for elementary schools to provide an alternative. Transportation staff asked the board to confirm whether instruments are permitted on buses; administrators said large instruments pose a safety concern and that the district would confirm whether the restriction is legislative or district policy. School meal website links and some page-numbering issues in the printed packet were also flagged for correction.

Board attorney Miss Nash and district staff noted the workshop itself cannot produce binding board direction; the draft code of conduct is posted for the next regular board meeting where the board may propose specific edits or approvals. Mr. Leesburg and other staff said the code will be considered at the board meeting that follows the workshop and that the committee will report back on Tri County’s cost and scope for alcohol/drug counseling prior to final action.

Because the workshop was a review and not a decision meeting, no formal board vote occurred during the session. The draft code contains multiple editorial and cross-reference edits staff said they will correct (page numbering, links to school board policies and consistent naming of departments) before presenting the item for action.

Ending: The board will consider the draft code of conduct at the next scheduled board meeting; staff expect to return with clarified language on Tri County counseling costs and with corrected packet references.