School board reviews proposed revisions to 2026–27 Code of Student Conduct

Miss Dampier introduced a set of recommended revisions to the 2026–27 Code of Student Conduct, saying the district discipline work group met November through February to develop the proposals and that staff would capture board feedback live.

The board considered 15 items the discipline work group and core team recommended for the coming year. "Today, I'm presenting the proposed revisions to this 2026, 27 code of student conduct developed by the district discipline work group in collaboration with district stakeholders," Miss Dampier said, introducing Mr. Armstrong, who walked the board through the spreadsheet of recommended changes.

The most prominent proposal would add a safe-harbor provision to district policy to protect students who turn contraband in to administration before entering school grounds. Mr. Armstrong said the recommendation "would be to add a safe harbor provision for types of contraband that were brought into our schools," and board members debated where that language should live — embedded in the weapons policy (cited in staff materials as policy 57-72), added to the search-and-seizure policy (57-71), or created as a standalone policy. Several members favored a single, districtwide safe-harbor policy to avoid touching many different policies.

Other substantive changes include replacing broad language about chemical-aerosol misuse with wording that specifies the "intentional use of any spray or aerosol in a way that has a negative or adverse effect on others or disrupts the learning environment." Board members asked staff to remove ambiguity over whether a violation must be both "intentional and unsafe," or whether "intentional" alone is sufficient; staff recommended keeping "intentional" and the language about adverse impact to guide discipline decisions.

Staff also proposed moving the corrective strategy of reassigned bus seating from a level 1 to level 2 infraction to align bus-violation progression with other offenses; renaming and clarifying indecent-misconduct language to "indecent exposure"; adding a 'taunting and teasing' code to capture conduct below the threshold for bullying or harassment; and creating 'other misconduct' codes at level 2 and level 3 to give administrators a coding option for disruptive incidents that do not neatly fit existing categories.

On tobacco, the DDWG recommended educational courses or public-service options in lieu of in-school suspension for first offenses. Staff proposed keeping the current suspension structure but adding a tobacco citation option that could require an educational course, public service, or paying a citation through the clerk of courts; staff said they are working with district security and the sheriff's office on program details and expect to propose a plan after spring break.

Several board members pressed for more discretion for elementary principals on lower-level infractions, especially for out-of-assigned-area and horseplay incidents, so that young children are not moved immediately into progressive, higher-level consequences. Staff reiterated the DDWG's aim for district consistency but agreed to consider wording and implementation that preserves appropriate local discretion.

No formal votes were taken during the work session; staff said the timeline is to present a final code for board approval in April–May after revisions and feedback.

The board scheduled follow-up work and asked staff to return with any necessary legal clarifications, alignment to existing policies, and a plan for training and implementation if the revisions are adopted.