District updates code of conduct to add vandalism, new 'school threat' category

District staff presented two changes to the student code of conduct at the Aug. 6 meeting: adding vandalism to the code with the Minnesota Department of Education definition and creating a new “school threat” classification that broadens existing threatened‑intimidation and bomb‑threat language.

Katie Bukowski, director of student services, told the board the vandalism language mirrors the Minnesota Department of Education definition: “willful or malicious destruction or damage of school or personal property and school grounds without the consent of owner.” The district will classify vandalism incidents in its existing disciplinary levels (levels 3–5 depending on age, context and repetition) so administrators can apply an appropriate response.

Bukowski also described a new “school threat” category that combines the district’s former threatened‑intimidation definition (conveying an intent to cause harm or violence through oral, written or physical acts) with consideration of threats targeted at a school site or the broader school community. The new category applies “regardless of intent or ability to carry it out” and is similarly placed in levels 3, 4 or 5 based on circumstances; examples cited range from a first grader’s drawing to a more serious threat by older students. Bukowski said the change is intended to give administrators a clear category for incidents that affect the school community or extend beyond a single student interaction.

Board members asked about the geographic scope of the policy (on‑site events, off‑site school‑sponsored events and social media). Bukowski clarified that conduct occurring at school‑sponsored events off campus or on social media that substantially disrupts the school environment would fall under the code of conduct. She said those jurisdiction details are spelled out elsewhere in district procedure.

The presenter noted the code of conduct is a procedural document posted on the district website under Publications and Reports; board members were reminded that policy governance (board policy) anchors procedures and that the board votes on policy, not the procedural code of conduct itself.

No formal board action was required; the item was presented as information.

Speakers in this account are named as they appeared in the Aug. 6 transcript.