Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews Digital Honor Code aimed at teaching digital citizenship and ethical AI use
Summary
Staff presented a divisionwide Digital Honor Code to guide student digital citizenship and AI use; the board asked about measurement, parent outreach and advisory committee maintenance, and staff said the code will appear in the student handbook with signature pages.
Get email alerts on the Digital Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orange County School Board members reviewed a proposed Digital Honor Code meant to define divisionwide expectations for digital citizenship, cyber-safety and ethical use of tools including artificial intelligence.
Staff told the board the honor code was developed during the district's strategic planning process with input from parents, administrators and advisory committees. The document is intended as a single, accessible statement of digital expectations for all students rather than separate documents by grade band. Staff said the final draft would be posted on the district website and included in the student handbook as a signature page to be returned at the start of school.
Board members asked how the district will measure effectiveness as technology and AI change rapidly. Staff said the code will be reiterated through each school's PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports) matrix and revisited periodically by an advisory committee; they also said Common Sense Media resources and parent information nights would be used to support families.
Dr. Hornick said the honor code is written to align with existing policies (acceptable use, academic honesty, bullying and the student code of conduct) and that the document is meant to be a concise, easily referenced resource for teachers and administrators. He described it as "a one-stop shop" that administrators and teachers can use when addressing student behavior and instructional needs.
The board did not approve policy changes at the meeting; staff flagged proposed policy revisions for a June 15 meeting if needed.

