Orange County board reviews student code changes on dress, witness statements and e‑scooter safety

The Orange County School Board on May 12 reviewed proposed revisions to its student code of conduct, focusing on dress‑code language for athletic practice, parental notification for witness statements, alternative disciplinary placements and safety rules for micromobility devices.

Deputy Superintendent Greg Martinez presented the draft as the second work session on the code, saying the district had solicited community feedback and met with principals to shape the changes. Staff member Pierre Salamanca summarized specific edits: removing “attempted use” from the cheating definition, dropping “safe referral” wording, clarifying procedure timing, and restoring prior dress‑code language while adding a line that specialized courses may require attire approved by a principal. "Practice uniforms and game uniforms are expected to align with competition uniform requirements as outlined by the Florida High School Athletic Association," Salamanca said when explaining the athletics-related change.

Why it matters: board members worried the new practice‑uniform wording could create ambiguity and disparate enforcement. Member Gallo and others said many sports do not have a single, designated practice uniform and feared the language could be interpreted unevenly by coaches. "So unless the competition uniform mirrors what people are practicing in, then it doesn't really address what we actually talked about at the last meeting," Member Varnos Keup said, urging staff to consider "practice attire" rather than a prescriptive "uniform." School staff and board members reached a working consensus to preserve the daytime on‑campus uniform wording while asking staff to return with clearer, narrower language about after‑school and off‑campus practice attire.

Parental notification and witness statements drew extended debate. Board members pushed for an opt‑out/opt‑in mechanism for K–2 students so parents can be notified, and recommended adding a clear checkbox or letter via the district’s Skyward system so families understand their choices. Staff said attempts to notify parents would occur but would not delay investigations: "They would try to call, leave a message, but they still would move forward with the investigation," Pierre Salamanca said. Several members urged additional protections for young children and proposed limiting or clarifying when administrators take witness statements from early elementary students.

Safety and placements: Member Gallo raised micromobility devices — e‑bikes and e‑scooters — asking whether the district can require helmets on campus. Legal counsel noted the district cannot regulate riders off campus but can set expectations and dismount/parking rules on campus; staff cautioned against creating conflicts with existing student‑parking policy. The Vice Chair reported recent fatalities in District 2 involving micromobility devices, saying, "I did unfortunately have a student pass away over the weekend due to getting hit in a micromobility device," and pressed for urgent follow‑up. On alternative placements, staff recommended clarifying step 9 that area administrators will offer parents the choice between Orange County Virtual School and Positive Pathways as an alternative placement during discipline team meetings.

Procedure and next steps: legal counsel and staff said the board can expect revised language to be circulated for comment ahead of the board’s June approval meeting; no formal action or vote was taken at the work session. Staff committed to present refined language addressing off‑campus practice attire, a parental opt‑out mechanism for witness statements, and clearer wording about alternative placements for disciplinary cases. The board directed staff to return with those options and to flag any conflicts with the district’s parking policy.