Gadsden school board reviews updated student code of conduct, delays final vote

The Gadsden County School Board on Wednesday reviewed a draft update to the district's student code of conduct, discussing restored teen court language, restorative practices for displays of affection, handling of wireless devices under new state law, and whether discipline for elementary students should be reduced from the secondary-level penalties.

Board members said the proposed policy matters because it sets discipline expectations for students, clarifies staff responsibilities and reporting requirements, and must align with newly enacted state requirements that took effect July 1. Several members urged clearer written guidance before the board takes a final vote.

Superintendent (as identified in the workshop) led the discussion and walked members through the document. On teen court language, staff explained the draft lists "civil citation/teen court" where teen court would be reestablished in Gadsden County and noted civil citations must be authorized by a law enforcement officer and typically involve approval from the state attorney. The superintendent said the county already uses civil citations while the district is working with the Department of Juvenile Justice and the state attorney to reinstate teen court.

Members asked how restorative practices would be applied to "inappropriate public displays of affection." The superintendent described restorative practice as teaching appropriate behavior and giving students another chance, and said staff will provide training on the approach. "It's still the same ... teaching kids the right thing to do," the superintendent said during the workshop.

Wireless devices and recording were a prolonged focus. Staff summarized the effect of new state legislation: in K'8, devices cannot be in use during the school day; in grades 9'12, devices may be used only for instructional purposes when written into lesson plans. The superintendent said lunchtime is "not one of those protected times," meaning students may have devices at lunch, but recording fights or other students would violate the code and carry discipline. The board's attorney noted Florida has restrictions on recording private conversations without permission and emphasized the policy should clarify that recording students or posting others' identities violates district policy.

Board members also questioned several operational details in the draft: whether confiscated or lost wireless devices create district liability (the draft says school employees "will not be held liable" for such devices), how the district will ensure consistent principal-level discretion across schools, and whether some infractions listed as in-school suspension (ISS) should instead be out-of-school suspension (OSS). The superintendent said staff will recheck those passages and make corrections.

Members pressed for clearer tiering for younger students. The superintendent said the district plans to apply a modified scale for elementary students ("about 50% of secondary consequences") and possibly 75% for middle school; staff will insert that wording in the next draft. Several board members also asked for explicit reporting mechanisms for bullying and harassment; staff said existing law requires administration to substantiate or dismiss reports and described options such as FortifyFL for anonymous threat reporting, but noted anonymous bullying complaints are difficult to investigate without names.

Board members raised rollout and outreach concerns after the draft appeared on social media before the board had approved the final version. Staff said the board will require parents to acknowledge the code via the district's FOCUS system before receiving account access; principals will review the code with students at the start of the year and the district plans targeted communications, including videos for social platforms students use.

The board asked staff to incorporate the board's comments and return a final document for formal consideration at the next board meeting; no formal vote was taken at the workshop.

Questions and concerns that staff said they will address in the next draft include: clarifying whether certain absences or refusals should carry ISS or OSS, inserting the elementary/middle-school scaling language, specifying when law enforcement must be notified versus referred for input, spelling out the district's liability position on confiscated devices, and documenting the reporting mechanism and procedures for bullying/harassment complaints.

Board members reiterated that staff conduct and a staff code of conduct also drew community attention; several members said they are reviewing board policies and union contracts to ensure consistent standards for employees. The workshop closed with staff saying they will collect the requested changes and present a final draft for the board's vote at its next regular meeting.