Board reviews proposed 2025‑26 student code of conduct; WCD restriction and discipline levels draw debate

Lee County School Board members received a first reading Feb. 4 of proposed updates to the 2025‑26 student code of conduct and a companion adult student code, including a proposal to restrict wireless communication devices (WCDs) during the instructional day and to change how several infractions are categorized and penalized.

District staff said the review followed broad stakeholder engagement — including surveys with more than 5,000 responses (94% parents), meetings with principal and teacher task forces, the district advisory council and student groups — and that a final version would return to the board in March for action. Doctor Jessica Duncan and Chuck Bradley led the briefing.

On WCDs: staff presented survey results showing 85.3% of respondents agreed with restricting WCD use during instruction “as long as students can access the device from their backpack in case of emergency.” Staff proposed a bell‑to‑bell restriction for the 2025‑26 year (no in‑class use) while allowing devices to remain in backpacks. The presentation said staff would include clarifying language so phones are accessible for emergencies and would add bus use to relevant infractions so expectations are clear on buses.

On discipline: staff proposed separating “disrespect” and “insubordination” into distinct infractions to improve data collection and response. They proposed changes to consequences for drug possession and use, expanded options for alternative placements or supports (including Success Academy), and a revised approach to bullying incidents (proposing to move some bullying responses from level 4 to level 3 with the option of SARC review and possible Success Academy consideration).

The code also addresses electronic/telecommunications device violations and proposes delineating between minor and major sexual misconduct (transcript redaction noted these references) so consequences can be calibrated; staff said major offenses would carry stricter consequences and minor repeated offenses would allow SARC review. Staff said they will add specific examples and parent‑facing materials to clarify what each infraction level means.

Board members and staff exchanged questions about implementation and equity. Board member Bridal urged districtwide consistency, saying “we can't have one school going left and another school going right,” and Board member Veil (Persons) and others said they support a districtwide bell‑to‑bell restriction to improve learning time. Several board members asked for school‑level data tying WCDs to disciplinary incidents and to outcome measures (student achievement). Staff said existing referral codes do not always identify whether a device triggered an infraction and offered to add clarifying referral categories to capture that link.

Public comment: Nanette Byrd Smith spoke during public comment to urge the board to review dress‑code enforcement, saying she found dress‑code discipline disproportionately applied to female students and that removals from class for dress‑code infractions can cause lost instructional time.

Next steps: staff said they will return March with a final code for board consideration and that the electronic device section in that final draft will reflect a bell‑to‑bell restriction. They also agreed to prepare parent‑facing examples of infractions and to provide comparative school data where available.

Ending: The board did not take a final vote; staff will bring a final code in March and provide additional data and parent materials as requested.