Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Laredo ISD reviews 2025–26 student code of conduct; trustees discuss vaping, device vandalism and placement practices
Summary
Administrators presented a revised student code of conduct aligned to TASB models and anticipated legislative changes. Trustees sought additions on Chromebook vandalism restitution, clarity on vaping/discretionary placements and impacts of out‑of‑school placements on credits and school accountability.
Doctor Eduardo Lopez presented the 2025–26 Laredo ISD student code of conduct draft, noting the annual review process, legal counsel input and alignment with the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) model. Lopez said the review aimed to remove redundancies between the code and the student handbook and to relocate attendance, health services and other non‑behavioral items to the handbook.
Staff highlighted that 2025 is a legislative year and that House Bill changes (cited generally during the presentation) could affect consequences for certain infractions, including vaping and limitations on removals for younger students; Lopez said TASB would issue an updated model in July and the district would incorporate necessary changes.
Trustees asked several substantive questions. Trustee Rodolfo Morales asked whether the code should add explicit language for willful destruction of district Chromebooks (for example, vandalism tied to TikTok challenges that damage USB ports and batteries). Lopez said vandalism and damage are already covered under existing codes but agreed to consult with the instructional technology office (Ambrose Gomez referenced) to add specific Chromebook/laptop restitution language and an updated fee structure. Trustee Juan Ramirez and others urged consistent implementation of fees and suggested criminal mischief referrals where CCTV or other evidence shows deliberate damage.
Trustees also raised concerns about the disciplinary placement sequence. Lopez explained that students found under the influence historically receive placement in alternative programs (Lara) for middle‑ and high‑school cases (with high school first‑time placements cited at 45 days) and that subsequent offenses have historically led to longer placements or JJAP hearings. Trustees asked why additional days added at the alternate placement sometimes appear shorter than initial campus consequences; Lopez said placement lengths and reassessments are governed by district practice and PEIMS discipline coding, and that adjustments could be made by the board if desired.
Trustees requested time to review the draft further and suggested bringing any changes back at the July update, especially to incorporate finalized legislative guidance and to produce clearer language on restitution, Chromebook fees and placement procedures. No board action was taken at the committee meeting.
