Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews tightened vaping rules, tech and threat-management changes in student code of conduct
Summary
Officials proposed revisions to the student code of conduct after stakeholder input, including earlier disciplinary responses for vaping, clarified reporting definitions, updated technology rules and strengthened threat-management language; staff plan training and outreach before adoption.
The Sarasota County School Board received a detailed briefing on proposed revisions to its student code of conduct on May 5, including strengthened early-stage discipline for vaping, clarified reporting pathways and updated technology and safety language.
Dr. Kirk Hutchinson described the stakeholder process: input was gathered from teachers (SCTA), principals, community partners, families and a student anti-vaping task force. That feedback produced a set of themes the district used to refine the code: consistency in implementation, proactive detection of repetitive low-level behaviors, staff development, positive relationship-building and effective interventions.
What changed: Dr. Clayton outlined specific updates. "We did make some refinements to the code of student conduct and the vaping protocol because some of the feedback—we needed to strengthen the disciplinary response early in the process. Um, so beginning with the first incident of vaping," she said, describing a move toward clearer, earlier consequences and a new vaping intervention agreement that would involve the student, parent and school. The revisions also align the code with a recently adopted board policy on student disruptions and demonstrations, clarify Florida Department of Education (FDOE) Cessors reporting definitions versus locally defined incidents, and add explicit language about new wearable technologies (smart glasses, smart watches) and their prohibited uses in schools.
Safety, investigation and training: Staff said the code will more clearly document threat-management steps (including requiring parent pick-up if an investigation makes that necessary), consequences for circumventing open-gate weapons detection, and escalated responses when low-level infractions become repetitive. The district also outlined a training rollout: mindset verbal de-escalation for all staff (a three- to four-hour course provided by a school-based trainer) and two-day PCM (Professional Crisis Management) training for specialized program staff.
Student voice and consequences: Officials cited Teen Court and student task-force input that pushed for fewer warnings and earlier consequences for vaping; students recommended simpler terminology (they use "vaping," not "tobacco") and suggested removing privileges (hall passes, parking) for offenders. Board members discussed how to balance deterrence with student rights and the need to develop meaningful educational resources for students and parents as part of interventions.
Next steps: Staff said the revision process will continue through June 16 (advertisement of the proposed code) and a final action is scheduled for July 21 after the required 28-day public notice period. The district plans summer and pre-planning professional learning so principals and staff can implement the changes consistently at every school.
