Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Conduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board advances revised student code of conduct after heated debate; administration asked to redraft
Summary
After extensive debate about definitions for 'distribution' and medication handling, the board voted 5–2 to accept the updated student code of conduct draft as amended and asked administration to return with another draft addressing outstanding concerns.
The board took a second read of proposed revisions to MCPS Policy 7‑3.1 (Code of Student Conduct) and engaged in extended debate about key definitions and disciplinary procedures.
Jason Garretson, director of student services and safety, presented a revised draft incorporating prior board feedback. Several members expressed concern about the policy’s definition of "distribution" for alcohol and controlled substances, and whether distribution should require an exchange of value or include any passing/giving of a substance. Board members also pressed administration about whether families would receive the same hearing packet that the board receives for long‑term suspensions or expulsions, and asked for clearer language to avoid unintended outcomes (for example, how over‑the‑counter medications like ibuprofen would be handled so that students would not face harsh discipline for minor infractions).
Garretson and the administration described a proposed panel review process that would allow administrative review — up to long‑term suspension — and reserve board hearings for cases the panel recommends for expulsion. The approach was presented as a way to reduce the number of board hearings for incidents that the administration determines do not rise to an expulsion recommendation after investigation.
Board members split on the changes. Concerns included: ensuring fairness for students who received distributed substances but did not bring them; clarifying what counts as an exchange of value (money, favors, promises); and protecting due process and family notification. After discussion a motion to accept the revised draft was moved and, on roll call, passed 5–2. Several members asked Garretson to produce another draft that addresses the outstanding definitional and packet‑sharing concerns before the policy advances further.
Next steps: Garretson will prepare a revised draft that clarifies the distribution definition, outlines administrative panel parameters, and confirms packet‑sharing procedures for families and the board.
