Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Updates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews policy package: safe‑and‑secure schools, instructional/media selection and seclusion rules
Summary
The Citrus County School Board reviewed a package of policy updates in a workshop, focusing on safe‑and‑secure schools notifications, quarterly safety reporting, instructional and educational media selection, seclusion prohibitions and procurement rules for professional services.
The Citrus County School Board held a workshop to review multiple policy updates recommended by NEFEC (Northeast Florida Educational Consortium) and the district policy committee, covering school safety, instructional and media material selection, student discipline, and selection of professional services.
Board members and staff discussed Policy 3.4 (Safe and Secure Schools), Policy 4.21 (Instructional Materials Selection), Policy 4.22 (Educational Media Material Selection), Policy 5.343 (Use of Physical Restraint or Seclusion for Students with Disabilities), and a new Policy 7.68 (Selecting Professional Services under CCNA). Members focused on ensuring the draft language mirrors statute, clarifies internal notification chains, and defines reporting cadence.
Key points discussed - Safe and secure schools (Policy 3.4): Board member Mr. Dixon asked whether the school police chief should be named among those notified in school emergencies; staff said the superintendent or designee will notify external agencies but the chief could be added or included as part of the administrative/designee group. A board member pressed that the draft should “mirror the statute” on reporting, citing that the statute requires quarterly reports on inspections to be presented to the district school board in a public meeting (board discussion sought to ensure the policy reflected that statutory quarterly reporting requirement).
- Instructional and media materials (Policies 4.21 and 4.22): Board members recommended adding explicit language on “age appropriate” suitability in the policy preamble and selection criteria so the public understands that material selection accounts for student age and developmental stage. One member suggested referencing the Florida statute’s resident definition when permitting a county resident to file an objection during the selection process to reduce disputes about who is eligible to object.
- Seclusion and restraint (Policy 5.343): Staff and board members clarified that the revised language prohibits use of seclusion for discipline and that seclusion as defined excludes “time‑out” or situations in which a staff member remains with the student. A board member asked, “Is there any time seclusion is acceptable?” and staff replied, “Not anymore,” indicating the proposed policy restricts seclusion for disciplinary purposes.
- Selecting professional services (Policy 7.68 / CCNA): The draft mirrors the Consultants’ Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA). Board discussion noted uncertainty about the statutory monetary threshold (one member said statute limits selection thresholds to $4,000,000 and questioned a higher figure in the draft); staff agreed to verify the referenced amount. Board members also discussed language preventing full‑time employees from contracting with the district to avoid conflicts of interest.
No formal votes were recorded on the policies during the workshop portion in the transcript; the discussion closed with staff agreeing to adjust language per the board’s points and to confirm statutory references and dollar thresholds.
Why it matters The reviewed changes affect how the district notifies internal and external safety partners during incidents, how instructional materials objections are handled, the legal and procedural treatment of seclusion and restraint, and procurement rules for professional services. Board members emphasized mirroring state statute for quarterly reporting and being explicit about age‑appropriate materials to reduce later disputes.
