final report - boarddocs...appendix b guide to the manifestation determination review appendix c...

Page | 1

Final Report:

Ad Hoc Committee on Student Rights and

Responsibilities

Steve Stuban, Chair

Craig Mehall, Vice-Chair

March 20, 2013

Office of the School Board

Fairfax County Public Schools

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=high+school+students&start=146&hl=en&safe=active&biw=1680&bih=924&tbm=isch&tbnid=TjXOCuWhzI6oEM:&imgrefurl=http://www.careerealism.com/interviews-high-school-students/&docid=mSsEhZcjkgCZjM&imgurl=http://www.careerealism.com/home/jtodonnell/careerealism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/04.08.11-How-High-school-Students-Are-Better-at-Getting-Jobs.jpg&w=665&h=1000&ei=cNo9UdvjIaTD0gGu94D4Cg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:75,s:100,i:229&iact=rc&dur=3856&page=6&tbnh=170&tbnw=117&ndsp=31&tx=65&ty=94

Page | 2

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

I. Background on Students Rights and Responsibilities

II. School Board Charge

III. Ad Hoc Committee Membership

IV. Ad Hoc Committee Process

V. Recommendations for Action

VI. Other Issues To Be Considered

VII. Executive Summary

Appendices:

Appendix A Discipline Procedures for Students with

Disabilities

Appendix B Guide to The Manifestation Determination Review

Appendix C Working Groups Membership

Appendix D Committee Voting Records

Appendix E Issues Matrix

Appendix F Summary of Community Dialogue Meetings

Appendix G Community E-Mails

Appendix H Committee Recommendations Not Forwarded to

The School Board

Appendix I Vote Matrix

Page | 3

The Ad Hoc Committee on Student Rights and Responsibilities would like to thank the

following individuals:

Megan Johnston Dr. Alma Abdul-Hadi Jadallah

James Meditz Julia Morelli

Bruce Engelbert Dr. MaryAnn Panarelli

Dr. Kathleen McQuillan Susan Barrett

Clarence Jones Recardo Sockwell

JD Anderson Kathleen Thomas

Lora Cornell Grace Winters

Beverly Madeja Robin Sheare

Ken Martin Jill Zuber

Diane Harazin Alice McDonald

Lidi Hruda Tom Stanley

Patti Parisi William “Geoff” Robbins

Betty Hatt Sue Kirkbride

Annie Meier Gatehouse Custodial Staff

Hallie Cornell

A special Thank You to the FCPS staff for their extra effort.

Page | 4

I. BACKGROUND ON STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The legal rights and responsibilities of students in the public schools of Fairfax County and the rules of conduct and disciplinary procedures applicable to students are explained in this booklet in accordance with the current version of Fairfax County School Board Policy 2601, which provides: The Fairfax County School Board recognizes that in our free and democratic society the law imposes responsibilities upon public school students and guarantees to them constitutional and other legal rights appropriate to their ages and levels of maturity. To help all students understand and appreciate both their rights and their responsibilities, it is the policy of the Fairfax County School Board that the Division Superintendent develop, subject to review by the School Board, and maintain written regulations stating the legal rights and responsibilities of students in Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) and the rules of conduct and disciplinary procedures applicable to students. This information shall be provided to each student and teacher in the form of a Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) booklet. The Fairfax County School Board is committed to ensuring respect for the civil rights of all members of the school community, as guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Our policies and regulations are designed to recognize the essential dignity of each student, teacher, and staff member and to create an atmosphere in which learning may flourish. No student in FCPS shall, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity.

PURPOSE To establish, for use by students and parents or guardians, a booklet describing the rights and responsibilities of students as prescribed in the Code of Virginia and Fairfax County School Board policy and regulations.

PROCEDURES AND DISTRIBUTION The Department of Special Services shall develop, for the Division Superintendent’s review, a booklet for teachers, students, and parents or guardians, stating the legal rights and responsibilities of students in Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS). The booklet shall also define the rules of conduct and disciplinary procedures applicable to students. This booklet shall be reviewed annually by the Department of Special Services, and revisions shall be published as necessary. A supply of the booklets shall be sent to each school for distribution to students in grades K through 12. General distribution to students shall be completed prior to September 30 of each year. Each new student who enters FCPS after the general distribution shall be given a copy at the time of registration. The current version of Regulation 2610.P, Removal (Suspension, Expulsion, or Exclusion) of Students from School, will be used only for due process. As required by Section 22.1–279.3 of the Code of Virginia, the parents or guardians of each enrolled student shall be sent a copy of the rules of conduct within one calendar month of the opening of school.

Page | 5

STUDENT AND FACULTY ORIENTATION All principals are requested to review the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) booklet with their faculties prior to the opening of school and to pay special attention to any changes. Principals shall develop procedures to ensure that each student has an opportunity to become familiar with the booklet. This includes appropriate adaptations for students with special learning challenges. Principals are encouraged to discuss, with the cluster assistant superintendents, their plans for distributing booklets and for conducting student and faculty orientations.

Page | 6

II. SCHOOL BOARD CHARGE

Page | 7

III. STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Organization Name of Nominee Fairfax Association of ES School Principals Mark Bibbee MS Principals Association Terrence Yarborough Fairfax County HS Principals Association Abe Jeffers Fairfax Association of School Psychologists Cynthia Kirschenbaum Fairfax Association of School Social Workers Quyen Duong Elementary School Counselors Marlene Guroff MS Directors of Student Services Association Brooke Samuelson HS Directors of Student Services Association Jim Rixse Fairfax Education Association Nancy Hammerer Fairfax County Federation of Teachers Steve Greenburg Association of Fairfax Professional Educators Theresa Poquis Hearing Officer JD Anderson Fairfax City School Board Penny Rood Fairfax County Government Bob Bermingham Student Advisory Council Jamie Yang Student Advisory Council Suraj Telhan Advisor and Facilitator Dr. Rich Moniuszko Advisor and Facilitator Dr. Kim Dockery

School Board Member Name of Nominee Name of Nominee Tammy Derenak Kaufax Craig Mehall-Vice Chairman Liz Dunn Sandy Evans Renee Lucero Dr. Rita Giles Pat Hynes Bettina Lawton Fabiana Ciammaichella Ryan McElveen Ralph Cooper Matt Bell Megan McLaughlin Robert Kane Karen Cogan Ilryong Moon Steve Lee Quy Vo Patty Reed Steve Stuban-Chairman Sheree Brown-Kaplan Elizabeth Schultz Dr. Margaret Fisher Sydney Sawyer Kathy Smith Tina Wallace Debbie Kilpatrick Dan Storck Kristina Wilkerson Avis Catchings Janie Strauss Judy Howard Dave Edelman Ted Velkoff Jill Beres Caroline Hemenway

Page | 8

IV. AD HOC COMMITTEE PROCESS

The Committee Membership’s earliest discussions sought to gain clarity on the Fairfax County School Board’s (FCSB) expectation from the Committee. As detailed in the minutes of the Committee’s proceedings, some members believed its work was to be focused exclusively on the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) document itself with an emphasis on simplifying its language and reducing the size. Other members pointed to the School Board’s direction that the Committee was expected to ensure the SR&R was consistent not only with School Board policies and Virginia laws, but with the community’s values. In reviewing how the School Board itself accomplished its annual review of the SR&R and studying the types of recommendations and amendments School Board members had offered and considered, the Committee concluded that all aspects of Fairfax County Public Schools’ (FCPS’) student disciplinary policies, procedures and processes were eligible for the Committee’s consideration. Similar to the technique employed by the FCSB in the Spring of 2011 when it began an annual review of the SR&R, the Committee divided itself into six separate teams and devoted a session to brainstorming issues and concerns related to student discipline in FCPS. At the end of the session, the teams briefed their results to the entire Committee. Nearly 50 issues and concerns were thus initially identified. These issues and concerns were then binned into five thematic groupings with the intent that the Committee would assign itself to subordinate Working Groups based on the identified themes. The five thematic groups so identified and established were:

The SR&R Document (Working Group #1)

Prevention, Intervention and Range of Responses of Students (Working Group #2)

Students with Disabilities (Working Group #3)

Parent Involvement and Parent Rights (Working Group #4)

The Discipline Process (Working Group #5)

Committee members were asked to self-select the Working Group to which they desired to be assigned. Upon initial assignment, the Committee Chair and Vice-Chair reviewed Working Group membership to ensure each had appropriate FCPS stakeholder representation. Adjustments were suggested and agreed upon by specific affected Committee members that resulted in the finalized Working Group membership (see Appendix C, Working Groups). With establishment of the Working Groups, each was requested to validate the issues binned to it. Working Groups were allowed the latitude to delete issues from their Group, add issues, recommend coverage by other Working Groups, and identify additional issues they believed to be relevant to their Groups theme. Review of the adjusted issue mapping revealed 47 discrete issues mapped to the Working Groups. In some cases a single issue was mapped and accepted by more than one Working Group. Although that was a concern in terms of duplicative effort, multiple assignments of an issue was allowed and viewed as a means by which diverse proposals could be realized. The spreadsheet at Appendix E documents the issues mapped to the five Working Groups. The use of Working Groups was envisioned and intended to facilitate the Committee’s ability to review the multitude of issues identified. With little more than four months available until a report was due to the FCSB, it was unrealistic to expect that the Committee could work as a single body in thoroughly assessing each of the issues. Each Working Group would therefore discuss the issues assigned to it and develop appropriate recommendations responsive to those issues. Recommendations supported by the majority of the Working Group’s membership would then be advanced to the entire Committee for consideration. Recommendations that did not achieve majority support within the Working Group first would not be allowed to advance for the Committee’s consideration.

Page | 9

Once the Working Groups were established, their membership finalized and issues assigned, the majority of the Committee’s scheduled sessions were devoted to deliberations at the Working Group level with periodic updates to the entire Committee. A “Recommendation” template was developed for the Working Group’s use. The template would serve to format the information desired on any recommendation, and was envisioned to be directly exportable to the Committee’s final report once the voting record and minority opinion (if needed) were included. The template included sections for:

Recommendation narrative

Background and rationale for the recommendation

Pros and Cons pertinent to the recommendation

The recommendation’s expected impact on the disproportionality of minority student discipline instances

Following several weeks of Working Group discussions, a series of Community Dialogue sessions were scheduled for February as follows:

4 Feb, 7-9 PM, Hayfield Secondary School

5 Feb, 7-9 PM, Stuart High School

5 Feb, 7-9 PM, Westfield High School

7 Feb, 7-9 PM, McLean High School

23 Feb, 1-3 PM, Falls Church High School The Working Groups had by that time developed several draft recommendations, but also recognized a need for community and stakeholder input on issues still under consideration. The Community Dialogue sessions were viewed as an opportunity to gain that invaluable feedback and socialize some of the recommendations being finalized. Feedback from the Community Dialogues (see Appendix F) was distributed to the Committee’s membership to allow them to validate that recommendations under development were consistent with the values and viewpoints expressed by the community and FCPS stakeholders.

The Committee’s last three sessions were reserved for presentations by the Working Groups of recommendations they supported for the full Committee’s consideration; in practice, four Committee sessions were required to consider all recommendations. All recommendations advanced to the Committee for consideration are captured in this report. Recommendations that were approved by a majority of the Committee are offered for the consideration and approval of the FCSB. In instances where 20% (eight members) or more of the Committee membership voted in the minority on any recommendation, that minority viewpoint was allowed an opportunity to document a minority or dissenting opinion attached to the specific recommendation. Doing so was viewed as having value for FCSB members in understanding all stakeholder viewpoints on any given recommendation.

Page | 10

Fairfax County School Board

Ad Hoc Committee on Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R)

V. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations Proposed by Working Group 1 THE SR&R DOCUMENT

Recommendation 1.1: Language and Tone

Improve the language and tone of the document by re-naming it, including a preamble* which includes the purpose and philosophy behind prevention and disciplinary practices with positive, balanced language.

COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 35 No – 0 No Vote – 0

Background – Rationale for Recommendation

The Fairfax County School Board has until recently performed an annual review of the School Division’s disciplinary policies with an eye toward updating the Student Rights and Responsibilities in time to meet distribution at the start of the next school year. The subcommittee on revising the SR&R document (Working Group #1) was charged with focusing on addressing the negative tone and apparent emphasis on discipline in the current document, as well as encouraging the understanding by parents and other populations of the partnerships and responsibilities of all stakeholders required to make the policies successful. We were charged with making the content of the document one that better educates all. Restrictive language was one item the subcommittee was to focus in on in this area.

Pros

Sets the tone for partnership and focuses on prevention and intervention. Clarifies the roles, rights and responsibilities of all stakeholders using positive language and

reinforcing the importance of all working together for the best interest of our students. **Preamble (Recommended sample within this recommendation):

Cons

Revisions may need to be made to the current document, which will require staff time and money. Increased expectations for partnership require participation by all stakeholders (commitments of

time and focus).

Impact on Disproportionality

The positive and balanced approach that focuses on partnerships and shared expectations should

reduce concerns over issues of disproportionality, including students/families of color or special needs.

Page | 11

**Preamble (Recommended Sample):

Title (TBD) of Handbook

Every child is an individual. It is with this belief that Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), in partnership with parents, strives to inspire and empower students to meet high academic standards, lead ethical lives, and be responsible and innovative global citizens.

The information in the (name to be determined, if not simply…) ‘Handbook’ will present what you can expect from FCPS and what FCPS can expect from you. It is presented to several target audiences in language and content most meaningful and appropriate for that group:

Students (K-3; 4-6; 7-8; 9-12)

Parents and Guardians

Educators

Administrators

Other FCPS Staff

Community Members and Leaders

Each version includes a brief overview with key points featured for each target audience. More in-depth information, as well as videos and activities, are featured in the on-line version of the Handbook at <<insert FCPS Handbook resource link>>. Full text versions of all FCPS policies and regulations, and Commonwealth of Virginia codes and statutes are also available online.

Our Handbook is divided into the following sections:

Rights and Expectations

Responsibilities

Interventions and Procedures

Glossary: Terms and People <<involved in the process or listed in this Handbook>>

Resources

Code of Virginia

Finally, a signature of the student, parent or guardian, and the student’s school principal – is required on the page located toward the back of the Handbook. The acknowledgement of these three people means that we have formed a partnership to help ensure that we will do our best to keep our school successful and safe.

<< Note: Follow this preamble with a Letter from the Superintendent, that should include sections relating to Beliefs, Mission, Vision, Looking to the Future, Commitment to Opportunity, Community Support, Achievement and Accountability.>>

Page | 12

Recommendation 1.2: Accessibility of SR&R Document

Improve the accessibility of the document by producing developmentally / age appropriate formats and versions on multiple platforms for different audiences.



The Fairfax County School Board has until recently performed an annual review of the School Division’s disciplinary policies with an eye toward updating the Student Rights and Responsibilities in time to meet distribution at the start of the next school year. The subcommittee on revising the SR&R document (Working Group #1) was charged with focusing on addressing stakeholder accessibility issues, broadening the inclusiveness of the document, ensuring student-friendly language and visuals are utilized, and providing resources (including those relating to safety).

Pros

This would address ‘age appropriateness’ of the document: Previous Practice: Continue FCPS practice to have SR&R versions for K-4 and 5-12. Documentation: 2003-04: K-3 and 4-12; 2004-05: K-3 and 4-12; 2006-07: K-3 and 4-12; 2007-08: K-3, 4-12

Many other school divisions have separate sections for students with disabilities in their codes of conduct. This may help with disproportionality concerns.

Sources: Philadelphia, Boston, New Orleans districts, etc.

Cons

Revisions may need to be made to the current document, which will require staff time and money. Multiple platforms will require an assessment of both FCPS and student / parent infrastructure

needs.


Addresses developmentally appropriate considerations or "adapted" versions --- Continue FCPS practice to have a version appropriate for students with significant cognitive disabilities, primarily Intellectual Disability and Autism.

Addresses age appropriateness – Continue previous FCPS practice to have SR&R versions for K-4 and 5-12. Documentation: 2003-04: K-3 and 4-12; 2004-05: K-3 and 4-12; 2006-07: K-3 and 4-12; 2007-08: K-3, 4-12

Page | 13

Recommendation 1.3: Readability and Language

Improve the readability of the document by using simplified language, improved formatting and graphics, data organizers, and relocating/revising the signature page and glossary. Where appropriate, sentence length and the amount of text should be considered and reduced.



The Fairfax County School Board has until recently performed an annual review of the School Division’s disciplinary policies with an eye toward updating the Student Rights and Responsibilities in time to meet distribution at the start of the next school year. The subcommittee on revising the SR&R document (Working Group #1) was charged with focusing on addressing compatibility with the organization of material presented in the Parents Handbook (to encourage better parent understanding and education), and reducing the document’s length while improving its readability.

Pros

Improvements in these areas will result in a better understanding of the documents content, and the specifics of the disciplinary policies.

Better understanding of the content (through improved readability) will assist in the education component, as stakeholders can assist each other in the process, i.e., the parent who understands the document can better explain it to his/her child. - Suggestion: Do not use acronyms in the document (community states it causes confusion).

- Suggestion: Provide a brief Table of Contents (with page numbers) to designate where information can be found in the Handbook.

- Suggestion: Provide a Glossary of Terms, as well as a section listing a ‘Who’s Who in the process,” i.e., Principal – who he/she works for, job description, and what his/her role is in the process.

- Suggestion: Integrate charts and graphs (such as the sample provided from Mt. Vernon HS on Discipline Guidelines) in the handbook to communicate more efficiently for visual learners or organizers vs. text formatting).

Cons

Revisions may need to be made to the current document, which will require staff time and money. FCPS stakeholders come from many educational and cultural backgrounds. Meeting the needs of

all will present challenge.


By addressing educational, formatting, and cultural considerations the document should be more user-friendly and encourage better content understanding by all stakeholders, including those of color or special need.

Page | 14

Recommendation 1.4: Balance of SR&R Document for All Target Audiences

Ensure the document is balanced to include content directed to all appropriate and necessary stakeholders, as well as resources and remedies available for students/parents of students engaged in inappropriate behavior, and students/parents of students who are adversely impacted by the inappropriate behavior.



The Fairfax County School Board has until recently performed an annual review of the School Division’s disciplinary policies with an eye towards updating the Student Rights and Responsibilities in time to meet distribution at the start of the next school year. The subcommittee on revising the SR&R document (Working Group #1) was charged with focusing on addressing the safety and rights of all students (with balance between discipline expectations and the rights of all students), emphasizing victim’s rights and restorative justice.

Pros

All students have a better understanding of their rights (including resources) and the discipline process, and feel their perspective is as important as another student’s.

Parents have expressed a desire to better understand the rights of both the adversely affected and those who engaged; these sections should assist in educating them. - Suggestion: Include a process and rights section specifically for those who engaged in the

inappropriate behavior, as well as those who were adversely affected.

Cons

Revisions may need to be made to the current document, which will require staff time and money. Increased awareness of ‘victims’ rights and restorative justice expectations may result in a need for

further review or revision of the document.


The balanced focus on the rights of both the adversely affected, and those who engaged in the inappropriate behavior should provide safeguards and better education for all groups. Students with disabilities and students of color may be targeted, so these sections should provide them with the education and protection of their rights.

Page | 15

Recommendation 1.5: Ongoing Consultation and Collaboration

Provide for on-going consultation and collaboration between FCPS staff and at least one member of each Working Group (#1-5) in regard to the creation and implementation of the new SR&R document and procedures, as detailed and accepted from the collective recommendations by the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Rights and Responsibilities to the School Board and as accepted by the School Board. COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 31 No – 2 No Vote – 0 Background – Rationale for Recommendation

The Fairfax County School Board has until recently performed an annual review of the School Division’s disciplinary policies with an eye toward updating the Student Rights and Responsibilities in time to meet distribution at the start of the next school year. The subcommittee on revising the SR&R document (Working Group #1) was charged with focusing on addressing the negative tone and apparent emphasis on discipline in the current document, as well as encouraging the understanding by parents and other populations of the partnerships and responsibilities of all stakeholders required to make the policies successful. We were charged with making the content of the document one that better educates all. Restrictive language was one item the subcommittee was to focus on in this area. Our experiences (on the committee) in working on the document revisions and gathering community input provide the working group members with unique insight into how we envision the revised document. Pros

Continues the collaboration and tone for partnership between FCPS staff and the community. Ensures the intent and vision of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Rights and Responsibilities is

honored and accurately presented. Cons

Time and human resources will be needed to complete the project collaboratively. Increased expectations for partnership require participation and time from both working group

representatives and FCPS staff.


The partnership between FCPS staff and working group representatives should produce a document

that reflects the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Rights and Responsibilities vision for the document,

and reduce concerns over issues of disproportionality.

Page | 16

Recommendation 1.6: Administrators and Teachers Review Revised Handbook

Time (at the beginning of the school year) must be designated to teachers and administrators to review the new user-friendly version of the SR&R ‘Handbook’ (title TBD) with parents and students. This must be communicated as a ‘priority’ by the Fairfax County School Board, and support must be provided at the program site level for principals and teachers to accomplish these tasks. COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 32 No – 2 No Vote – 0 Background – Rationale for Recommendation

The Fairfax County School Board has until recently performed an annual review of the School Division’s disciplinary policies with an eye toward updating the Student Rights and Responsibilities in time to meet distribution at the start of the next school year. The subcommittee on revising the SR&R document (Working Group #1) was charged with focusing on addressing parent and student education, encouraging understanding by parents, and providing resources to support effective implementation of the new document/program. Pros

By using the new ‘user-friendly’ version of the SR&R document, teachers and administrators can better educate all stakeholders on the content and formatting of the new handbook.

Clarifies the roles, rights and responsibilities of all stakeholders using outreach and collaboration, reinforcing the importance of understanding the document and all working together for the best interest of our students. - Suggestions:

- Parent Orientation nights by principals - SR&R (‘Handbook’) lessons in class educate students and reinforce rights and

responsibilities Cons

New (developmentally appropriate) versions of the SR&R will require staff time and money. Time will need to be provided to educators to hold orientations and teach classroom lessons. Impact on Disproportionality

By better educating students and parents proactively on the SR&R document, concerns over issues of disproportionality can be addressed more constructively.

Page | 17

Recommendations Proposed by Working Group 2 PREVENTION, INTERVENTION AND RANGE OF RESPONSES

Recommendation 2.1: School Administrator Discretion

The SR&R should state: “In determining appropriate disciplinary actions, the principal is expected to, consistent with School Board regulations, consider relevant factors such as (i) the student’s age; (ii) previous disciplinary infractions (including the nature of the prior misconduct, the number of prior instances of misconduct, and the progressive disciplinary measures implemented for such misconduct); (iii) cultural or linguistic factors that may have played a role in the misconduct; (iv) information about the student provided by parents, teachers, counselors, and/or other school staff; (v) the circumstances surrounding the misconduct; and, (vi) other mitigating or aggravating factors. Nothing herein shall require or prohibit the use of progressive disciplinary measures or establish the order in which disciplinary measures may be imposed.” [“progressive disciplinary measures” should be defined in the Glossary]



This language expresses a move away from mandatory disciplinary consequences imposed without regard to context and circumstances. It supports the use of discretion by administrators, implicitly including the discretion to use positive behavioral interventions when appropriate, rather than punishments. It supports collaboration between administrators and other school staff in deciding on a response to misconduct. It acknowledges that School Board regulations may in specific instances limit the principal’s discretion, such as when a violation carries a mandatory suspension and recommendation for expulsion.

Pros

Supports administrators in tailoring a disciplinary response that is appropriate to the student and the circumstances and therefore more likely to be equitable and effective in changing the student’s behavior.

Cons

Consideration of context and use of discretion may lead to greater real or perceived inconsistency in how students are disciplined.


This provision will support principals in developing targeted interventions most appropriate for specific subgroups. Also, currently, some students whose parents are effective advocates, well-versed in school system procedures, may be able to argue for the use of administrative discretion when the student becomes involved in the disciplinary process, while other students, who lack effective advocates on their behalf, may face unmitigated consequences. This provision makes it clear that principals should consider relevant contextual factors when disciplining all students.

Page | 18

Recommendation 2.2: Range of Responses We recommend that the Fairfax County School Board (FCSB) revise its policies, procedures, and programs to establish a tiered range of responses to behaviors using methodologies that produce reliable and valid evidence-based approaches to school discipline.

We further recommend that, to ensure these actions successfully accomplish their intent, the FCSB establish a method for training staff, monitoring and measuring success, tracking progress on reducing disproportionality and achievement gaps, and implementing corrective actions and improvements.

We further recommend that the FCSB establish a work group consisting of stakeholders from staff and the community and staff to develop appropriate language for a specific recommended tiered structure (such as the number of tiers, the behaviors falling within each tier, and the range of responses appropriate for each tier), consistent with best practices.

COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 33 No – 1 No Vote – 0 Background – Rationale for Recommendation

This recommendation expresses a move away from mandatory disciplinary consequences and supports the goal that the vast majority of disciplinary issues should be addressed at the classroom level by teachers, or within a student’s base school or school attended when the disciplinary event occurred, and that in all instances, school discipline should be reasonable, timely, fair, age-appropriate and should match the severity of the student’s misbehavior.

Several jurisdictions are successfully implementing this approach, including Anne Arundel County MD1,

Denver, and Philadelphia2, following a model promoted by The Advancement Project 3, which has become a best practice across the nation.

Stakeholders are essential to successful implementation of such programs because when they are involved in creating, implementing and monitoring them, trust is built between schools and the community. Stakeholders on the task force should be well-acquainted with the FCPS discipline system and national best practices, should represent school-based staff, parents, students and experts in childhood education and discipline, and should reflect the diversity of the student body.

While FCPS provides for some disciplinary responses that are less punitive than suspension in the SR&R, it does not require that any of these responses be issued first or instead of other more punitive responses, and even within the list it provides, most are still punitive and exclusionary in nature.

This recommendation supports the use of discretion by administrators, implicitly including the discretion to use positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) when appropriate rather than punishments. It supports collaboration between administrators and other school staff in deciding on a response to misconduct. It acknowledges that individual schools may need to emphasize different interventions and responses while ensuring that the process itself is carried out consistently across all schools.

It acknowledges that school board regulations may, in specific instances, limit the principal’s discretion, such as when a violation carries a mandatory suspension or recommendation for expulsion.

The use of measures such as out-of-school suspensions, expulsions and referrals to alternative schools that exclude students from school should be minimized. These measures have resulted in the loss of valuable instructional time and student disengagement from school, and should be reserved for

1 http://www.aacps.org/html/studt/studenthandbook.pdf

2 http://www.philasd.org/offices/administration/policies/CodeofConduct.pdf

3 http://www.stopschoolstojails.org/content/model-discipline-policies

Page | 19

infractions that cannot be appropriately addressed through other interventions and disciplinary responses.

FCPS data show that the majority of students who are deprived of educational services as a result of disciplinary measures go off track from on-time graduation. Substantive research shows a direct correlation between suspension rates and dropout rates in school systems nationwide, and that dropouts are costly to the community at large. FCPS data demonstrate there is disproportionate use of out-of-school suspensions, expulsions and referrals to alternative schools.

Pros

Supports the goal of keeping students in the classroom or otherwise in school to minimize loss of learning.

Does not remove severe consequences that currently exist for various infractions, but supplements them with a tiered range of options that can be implemented in a sliding scale.

Staff from The Advancement Project have stated they are prepared to work with the FCSB to help with developing and implementing this approach, a free resource of national stature.

Promotes the educational component of “discipline” by providing means for teaching students better behavior habits and enhancing personal responsibility (through restorative justice and other methods).

Allows FCPS to take advantage of all of its existing resources and county services, with support by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors as offered in its resolution of Feb 8, 2011.

The district can seek input from and partnerships with social workers, drug and alcohol counselors, mentors and other providers so that students learn appropriate behavior and so the root problems underlying behavior are addressed.

FCPS already uses PBIS which can be enhanced as part of a range of responses, such as parental contact and involvement, rewards, peer mediation, conferencing, conflict resolution, service learning, character education, and alcohol and drug intervention programs, which are relatively easy and cost-effective to implement.

School systems that have implemented a range of responses (with suspensions or expulsions as measures of last resort) along with PBIS have found this approach supports the following outcomes: - School discipline is best accomplished by preventing misbehavior before it occurs, and using

effective interventions after it occurs. - School safety and academic success are formed and strengthened when all school staff and

personnel build positive relationships with students and are actively engaged in their lives and learning.

- School discipline that is paired with meaningful instruction and guidance offers students an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and contribute to the school community, and is more likely to result in getting the student re-engaged in learning.

Effective school discipline through these means maximizes the amount of time students spend learning and minimizes the amount of time students are removed from their classrooms due to misbehavior.

Research shows that school connectedness is the strongest protector against substance use,

school absenteeism, early sexual initiation, violence and risk of unintentional injuryi. It is also critically important in protecting adolescents from emotional distress, eating disorders, and suicidal ideation and attempts.ii

This approach emphasizes restorative strategies, which are problem-solving interventions that focus on the harm caused and how it will be repaired, and which should be a basis of disciplinary practices in FCPS. Examples of restorative strategies include circles, group conferencing, and victim offender mediation.

Page | 20

Therapeutic and resources strategies are done by the offending student, and include such activities as mental health counseling, anger management or other types of skill classes or training, informal mentoring and coaching, and behavioral plans. This recommendation supports making more of these strategies always available.

Cons

Changing a school system’s culture takes time and resources. A range of responses could exacerbate disproportionality since principals will have the discretion to

provide a different consequence depending on the student’s circumstances. Making efforts to ensure each student has a trusted adult to talk to so students don’t get off track is

critical to connectedness, safety, well-being, behavior and success. It will take resources, training and staff focus.


The majority of discipline outcomes, including short- and long-term suspensions, are related to subjective behaviors and are disproportionately leveled against minority students and students with disabilities. Resolving more of these issues without resorting to suspensions and by requiring that a larger range of responses be used before suspensions are considered would reduce this disproportionality.

A range of responses would introduce measures more suited to students with a range disabilities than exists now.

1 Center For Disease Control and Prevention, available at http://www.cdc.gov/Features/ConnectToSchool/#one. (citing

Resnick MD, Bearman PS, Blum RW, et al. Protecting adolescents from harm. Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on

Adolescent Health. JAMA 1997;278(10):823–832). 1 Id.

Page | 21

Recommendation 2.3: School Discipline Plan

Each school shall establish and disseminate a School Disciplinary Plan (SDP) setting forth guidelines that the principal and other school staff will use in addressing and imposing consequences for student misconduct. The SDP may incorporate provisions of the SR&R and may set forth a range of disciplinary responses more specific than, but not inconsistent with, those set forth in the SR&R for various types of student misconduct. A school’s SDP should operate in tandem with the school’s positive behavior intervention plan. The SDP should be tailored to the needs of the school, and shall be developed and reviewed annually by the principal in collaboration with other school staff, parents and students. The annual review of the SDP shall include consideration of relevant data and the effectiveness of the SDP for subgroups of the student population.



An SDP would provide a road map to school staff, students, and parents regarding how discipline is handled at the school, and the types of consequences or interventions students can expect for various types of misconduct. Its focus would likely be less severe violations that are addressed only very generally in SR&R. For example, what sort of progressive consequences can students expect if they are tardy to class, if they are disruptive in class or in the halls, etc.? Most schools have established practices for such things, but they vary (and the terminology varies) somewhat from school to school. An SDP would still permit administrators to impose discipline appropriate to the circumstances, within the general guidelines set forth in the plan. A school’s positive behavior intervention plan, its School Discipline Plan and the SR&R would collectively address the whole disciplinary continuum.

Pros

Would support school-based management and disciplinary approaches tailored to the needs of the school.

Would increase transparency and likely increase parental involvement and buy-in. Would encourage use of data in reviewing effectiveness of disciplinary approaches. For some schools, would merely formalize something they are doing already.

Cons

May increase real or perceived inconsistency in disciplinary responses between one school and another

Time and resources required for principals and other school staff to develop and annually review the plan (including gathering and analyzing relevant data), and for central office administration to supervise compliance as appropriate


The annual review of the SDP would cause attention to be paid to disproportionate numbers of disciplinary infractions being committed by students in particular subgroups, or disproportionate consequences being imposed on students in particular subgroups. This would support development of interventions designed to keep all students in school, resulting in better academic outcomes.

Page | 22

Minority Opinion

The primary reason this recommendation could not be supported was because of the prescriptive phrase ‘shall establish and disseminate.”

There are over two hundred schools in the FCPS system and no two schools are alike. While many secondary schools, which tend to see greater numbers of discipline incidents, already have school disciplinary plans, many if not most of our elementary schools do not have them. Elementary schools currently use the SR&R document as the "school discipline plan.” The SR&R lists a variety of offenses and a range of consequences for each offense. Principals refer to this document on a case-by-case basis. Forcing a school to recreate a discipline plan when one already exists and is approved by the School Board is a work in redundancy and takes time away from operating the school efficiently. For some schools, creation of such a plan would be an additional burden at the building level to create something that will not be used as it is not needed.

SR&R is the discipline document for the school division and all schools within it. The schools that create SDPs are schools that find the same problems recurring from year to year and want to call special attention to them. As changes recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee do not detail inappropriate behaviors but only a range of consequences, stipulating to schools that they must detail inappropriate behaviors along with the range of consequences is unwarranted.

Schools that need SDPs have them. Best practices are that they review them annually, and would make changes already. This recommendation is not necessary, will create undue work for many schools, especially in elementary schools, and therefore should not be adopted by the School Board.

Page | 23

Recommendation 2.4: Language and Philosophy

Topic Forwarded to Working Group 1

Page | 24

Recommendation 2.5: Positive Behavioral Approach

We support integrated PBA principles in all schools. There are a variety of models that exist, including PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports) and Responsive Classroom. The guiding principal is that “Zero-Tolerance” or punishment-based systems are not as effective as a positive behavioral approach to discipline, according to a large body of research. We recommend that the School Board fund a school-wide behavior intervention and supports continuum in all schools by providing training, teaching aides, staffing and ongoing evaluation of program effectiveness. In addition, PBA programs should be multileveled to address the entire student population. They should address the majority of students with school-wide positive behavioral expectations, positive reinforcement and parental involvement. For students whose behaviors are not responsive to the first level there should be a more intensive response. The final level for students whose behaviors are unresponsive to the other levels of intervention should include an even more intensive individualized approach.

Schools should promote an atmosphere of positive expectations and interventions. There needs to be a data system to gauge the effectiveness of each school’s PBA system. This data should be available to school staff in real-time so they can make immediate adjustments to the system. PBA systems that are not demonstrated to be effective should get the support to make the modifications necessary for success, primarily being defined as a diminishing number of discipline events and a decrease in disproportionality.

COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 28 No – 4 No Vote –1 Background – Rationale for Recommendation

Susan Barrett from the U.S. Department of Education presented on this issue to the full committee. Based on her presentation we came to the conclusion that PBA programs are now well established as more effective than previously used systems of discipline. During the presentation our own school staff MaryAnn Panarelli and Kathleen McQuillan from FCPS Special Services presented to the committee as well. They informed us that there are already PBA standards in place at FCPS. The committee’s understanding is there is a combination of PBIS, Responsive Classroom and School-Specific PBA plans already in place. However, without an evaluation process we have no idea whether we have successful implementation.

School systems such as Anne Arundel County, MD, have data showing lower suspension and expulsion rates using PBA.

Some committee members attended the conference Closing the Discipline Gap: Research to Practice in Washington, D.C. A variety of data was presented on the effectiveness of PBA programs. There is a large body of literature on the subject too exhaustive to quote every source in this proposal.

Some useful websites: http://www.pbis.org/ http://www.responsiveclassroom.org

http://www.pbis.org/

http://www.responsiveclassroom.org/

Page | 25

Pros

Research and data support a PBA approach in terms of decreasing discipline problems and increasing desired outcomes, i.e., high school graduation rates, decrease in suspensions and expulsions.

More positive school environment for students and staff A more effective discipline system will free staff time for other activities Lowers discipline referrals over time (longitudinally) Focuses on the individual needs of each student

Cons

Resources will be involved, including funding and staff time It requires a change in culture and practice, difficult for some staff and communities


With PBIS, the number of discipline incidents is decreased in all groups, including minorities. However, the data collected to date for PBIS indicates it has not decreased disproportionality for African American males. The disproportionately represented groups in FCPS in the discipline system are males, students in grades 8 through 10, special education students, African Americans and Latinos.

Any approach that reduces suspensions would help reduce disproportionality. This support would improve student engagement at school, which has a direct effect on positive behavior, achievement, and graduation rates.

Page | 26

Recommendation 2.6: In-School Academic Support

We recommend that the Fairfax County School Board provide in-school academic support by qualified staff to all students during disciplinary consequences that remove them from the classroom and provide appropriate designated space to do so.

We further recommend that this support be given in a manner that keeps the student on track for successfully completing his or her courses and on track for graduation, and that the School Board establish a method for training staff, monitoring and measuring success, tracking progress on reducing disproportionality and achievement gaps, and implementing corrective actions and improvements.



This recommendation supports a range of responses to behavior issues when a situation calls for a student being removed from the classroom. This academic support should be available for students under a tiered range of responses approach, such as when a student is undergoing peer mediation, the restorative justice process, detention (Saturday or otherwise), a school-based alcohol or drug intervention program, or other situations where the student cannot attend class.

When students are out of class for any length of time, they lose academic ground and need meaningful academic support. Such support can ensure a smoother transition back to the regular classroom environment. This approach can tie in with support for students returning from suspension out of school or transferring from another school.

FCPS data show that the majority of students who are deprived of educational services as a result of disciplinary measures go off track from on-time graduation. Efforts to keep students on track academically during suspension or other classroom removal will help ensure that students don’t fall off track. Pros

Helps close the achievement gap since a large percentage of students in the discipline process are African American, Latino and/or students with disabilities

Allows for a range of responses to behavior issues short of suspension that keep students in school and learning.

Return on investment of keeping students in school and learning is proven. Keeps students on track with the rest of their class on assignments and supports research that

shows education continuity is critical to future success. Makes the transition back to the regular classroom smoother for students who are still in class, and

for teachers who would not have to differentiate for or remediate students who need to catch up or put together extra packets of work.

Cons

Additional short-term costs for providing staff and space. It may be difficult to have certified staff for all the different subjects at the secondary level. If certified staff are specifically hired or designated for this, resources may not be used 100% of the

time; schools could end up with inefficient use of space and staff, such as when there are no students who have been removed from the classroom.

Page | 27


The majority of the students in the discipline process are African American or Latino, and students with disabilities. Any alternative to suspension would help reduce disproportionality. This support would improve student engagement at school, which has a direct effect on positive behavior, achievement, and graduation rates.

Page | 28

Recommendation 2.7: Suspension with Support

We recommend that the Fairfax County School Board provide effective academic support by certified staff to all students during suspensions or during other disciplinary consequences that remove them from the school for longer than one day.

We further recommend that this support be given in a manner that keeps the student on track for successfully completing his or her courses and on track for graduation. Educational services should include:

Classroom work, corrected and returned to the student.

Posting assignments to BlackBoard and daily presentations.

At least one staff person assigned to be the liaison between teachers and the various students on out-of-school suspension.

We further recommend that where the term “suspension” is used in the SR&R, it be replaced

with “suspension with support (SWS).”


When students are out on suspension of any length, they lose academic ground. Suspended students also risk becoming involved in more serious disciplinary infractions while on unsupervised suspension. Some suspensions, especially those with recommendations for expulsion, can last for weeks or even months.

FCPS data show that the majority of students who are deprived of educational services as a result of disciplinary measures go off track from on-time graduation.

Homework packets and periodic phone calls “checking in” on them is not enough. Students on out of school suspension (OSS) need meaningful academic support, including access to alternative facilities where their studies can be supervised by resource teachers or teacher assistants. By providing support during suspension, FCPS can ensure smoother transition back to the regular school environment, which will lead to better academic outcomes in the long term.

Students who return from suspension may need extra assistance before or after school or during the school day, or during lunch or other free periods. Providing this kind of additional support when the student returns to school can lead to better academic outcomes.

Students who receive in-school suspension (ISS) or are otherwise removed from class but kept in school should receive similar academic support during the school day from qualified staff, for the same reasons OSS kids should - to keep them on track and engaged.

Efforts to keep students on track academically during suspension or other classroom removal will help ensure that students don’t fall off track again. Kids would rather be the “bad” kid than the “dumb” kid. When students feel they are failing academically after being suspended, it can take away their drive to succeed. We want all children to succeed, even those who may have fallen off track prior to a discipline outcome.

The term “suspension with support” emphasizes that all suspensions come with support, in line with a focus on a restorative and rehabilitative approach to discipline issues.

Page | 29

Pros

Suspension with support (SWS) is the right thing to do; FCPS does not throw away any child. SWS helps close the achievement gap since a large percentage of students out of school and left

behind are African American, Latino and/or students with disabilities SWS keeps students on track with the rest of their class on assignments. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to work closely with the school

system on measures that can address discipline issues, which includes methods for supporting students out of school.

SWS would allow for a range of responses to behavior issues short of suspension that keep students in school and learning.

An SWS program would not require classroom teachers to put together or grade extra packets for students who are suspended.

SWS makes the transition back to the regular classroom smoother for students out on suspension, students still in class and teachers who would not have to differentiate for or remediate students who needs to catch up.

SWS gives the student a sense that he or she is still cared about by the school system and still part of the overall school family.

Research shows that education continuity is critical to future success. With proper support during suspension, there is no need for a set-apart process to “ease” students

back to school, which further delays a student’s return to the regular learning environment. Academic success results in fewer future discipline infractions With overall reductions in out-of-school suspensions because of successful prevention and

intervention programs, cost of meaningful suspension with support is not prohibitive. In the past, support on suspension using existing alternative classroom resources and resource teachers or teacher assistants costs $500,000 to $750,000.

Support on suspension was funded in the 2011 “budget reconciliation process” by reallocating money that was set aside but not spent.

Cons

Additional short-term cost in tight budget cycle. Community may not care about throwing away these kids. Community may not wish to allocate additional resources. Requires working with county staff for out-of-system resources. Impact on Disproportionality

The majority of the students in the discipline process are African American, Latino and students with disabilities. Discipline disproportionality and the achievement gap are related. The longer it takes to get students back in their classrooms, the more they continue to be alienated and detached from the value of school and education. When they are kept out of the classroom without adequate support, it is more difficult for them to transition back. They also lose the sense of being part of the general population.

Substantive research shows a direct correlation between suspension rates and dropout rates in school systems nationwide, and that these dropouts are disproportionately Black and Latino.

Providing proper support to this population of students returning from suspension increases their chance for academic success and reduces the chance of additional discipline infractions. If FCPS does not provide the proper support, it will have the same disproportional outcomes – academically and with discipline.

Page | 30

Recommendation 2.8: School Transfer Support

Create robust programs or improve programs in place to help students as they move from one school to another, and provide support throughout the year for students to ensure a successful transition, with the particular aim of reducing disciplinary infractions among 9th grade students. The program should be monitored throughout each year with data gathered in real time for success regarding this aim.



Statistics show that a majority of students who have been charged with disciplinary consequences (suspensions) are those who are in their first year of high school. The transition from middle school to high school is extremely important in determining a student’s future and a robust program needs to be implemented. This will help ensure that these students are being taken care of and that they understand the new guidelines and rules in their new school’s environment. Even though this is directed mainly toward rising freshmen, students transferring to a new school could also be positively impacted by a “new students” program. Everyone knows transitioning to a completely different school can be difficult so we need to help make it easier for students to become accustomed to the new atmosphere and the new school system. It is understood that there are schools that currently have programs guiding new students, but we believe these programs need to be strengthened. Successes of these programs need to be monitored and show a reduction in freshman discipline.

Pros

Connect the new students to the new school Learn the nuances of a new school culture Develop a mentor (for navigating the school building, developing relationships, and understanding

what is expected) If student mentors are used to help the new students, it could count as community service for

current students who need hours

Cons

Logistics (implementation with fidelity) Funding (ex: transportation, staff, food)


African American and Latino students, students with disabilities and males are disproportionately represented in the discipline system, especially in 9th and 10th grades. Any program that helps students during school transitions in a way that prevents them from entering the discipline system will help reduce this population in the system. This will allow these and all students gain a better awareness of and become accustomed to their new surroundings so they are more confident and are engaged in school, which is shown to reduce behavior issues.

Page | 31

Recommendation 2.9: Attendance Task Force

We recommend that the School Board establish a task force that includes essential stakeholders and reflects the diversity of the student body to address causes of and solutions to attendance issues.


Attendance is critical to achievement and to elimination of the achievement gap; empirical evidence demonstrates a direct link between absences and infractions; having access to children in school provides opportunities for interventions; and data show absences (truancy, tardiness, skipping classes or school) continue to be a problem in many FCPS schools. Thus, a comprehensive review of the causes of and solutions to this issue would benefit all students, teachers, principals, and other administrators, as well as families and communities struggling to keep their children in school and learning to their potentials.

Pros

Supports the goal of keeping students in the classroom or otherwise in school to minimize loss of learning. Absenteeism, along with misbehavior, poor performance, and lack of participation in extracurricular activities are considered to be among signs disengagement that are linked to dropouts and discipline issues. Studies4 show that where there is one “sign,” the others exist or can follow.

FCPS has a multitude of approaches for keeping students in school and engaged once they are there. Many of these may be successful, but it would benefit all schools if they were reviewed comprehensively for those that demonstrate success so these success factors can be replicated among schools.

A task force could address root causes to attendance issues and work with county services to identify existing cross-functional and cross-jurisdictional solutions, identify where improvements could be made and new approaches adopted, and identify national best practices for consideration. Such an approach could identify economies of scale and eliminate redundant programs.

Allows FCPS to take advantage of all of its existing resources and county services, with support by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors as offered in its resolution of Feb 8, 2011.

A task force that includes all essential stakeholders, especially classroom teachers, parents from at-risk populations, child development experts, and other advocates, reduces the dangers of “what we don’t know we don’t know” and ensures that problem-identification and recommended solutions are realistic and achievable.

Fairfax County is home to a large population of experts willing to donate time for improvements in education. Because FCPS staff suffer from work overload, a task force can take advantage of expertise to supplement that of FCPS staff and share the burden of tackling the attendance problem.

By figuring out how to keep students in school, society at large benefits in both the short- and long-run. There would be less criminal or delinquent activity because students would not be unsupervised in the community and instead would be in school, where they have access to positive behavior supports and interventions.

Students who stay in school are held accountable for learning while in school or in class, which

requires time put toward positive instead of negative outcomes. They learn the value of education and the associated benefits because the instructor sets the expectation that failing is not an option.

4 http://www.palmbeachschools.org/dre/documents/Predicting_Graduation_and_Dropout.pdf

Page | 32

Studies show that these students are less likely to drop out and more likely to be contributing taxpayers over their lifetimes.

Students who choose to stay in school become examples to their peers and could take on leadership roles that encourage school engagement among their cohorts.

The task force can explore the large body of work conducted across the country to resolve absentee problems that could be replicated here. For example, according to a comprehensive review of absenteeism in Indiana5, attendance rates impact achievement for all racial groups. It identified successful programs such as the one in Baltimore.

The City of Baltimore has implemented a School Every Day! initiative, which utilizes the help of volunteers to break down the barriers to school attendance by delivering alarm clocks, school uniforms, umbrellas and winter coats to students and families in targeted neighborhoods. Volunteers connect families with support they need, whether material or emotional, create a peer-to-peer messaging system where older students write to younger students letting them know they are missed when they are absent, and solicit gift certificates from local merchants to offer incentives to students for good attendance. The goal of the program is to reduce chronic absenteeism by 20% in the neighborhoods where it operates. The program is funded by the Abell Foundation and housed in the BCPS Office of Engagement (Attendance Works, 2012c).

Cons

A task force would require resourcing and demand quality time from everyone involved. It would have to be highly focused and demonstrate value.


According to a recent report6, “Chronic absenteeism is most prevalent among low-income students.” Reducing absenteeism in this community is essential to reducing disproportionality in discipline and related outcomes in this population.

Cultural awareness of why Black, Latino and low-income kids, and students with disabilities do not attend class is essential to address disproportionality in related outcomes. The task force should also look at ways to engage and teach African American, Latino and low-income students, and students with disabilities when they are in the classroom to foster a desire to complete their education.

Students don’t learn when they are not in class so it is important to specifically review and look for approaches that encourage them to be in the classroom instead of, as evidence show they do, creatively finding ways to beat the system through tardiness and absences.

A new emphasis on being in class will inspire this population to work toward a meaningful future instead of suffering negative discipline outcomes that are attached with poor attendance and tardiness.

5 http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V10N3_2012_EPB.pdf

6 http://new.every1graduates.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FINALChronicAbsenteeismReport_May16.pdf

Page | 33

Recommendation 2.10: Literacy Task Force We support policies and programs that ensure all students read at grade level by the end of third grade, and at grade level every year thereafter, and recommend that the School Board make this a priority goal.

We support policies and programs that establish and maintain an effective means of connecting school staff with parents/guardians of students at risk and recommend that the School Board make this a priority goal. COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 17 No – 3 No Vote – 9 Background – Rationale for Recommendation

Because literacy and academic achievement have direct links to appropriate behavior and good judgment, we support the FC School Board’s goals to improve these outcomes in all students. Literacy requires support from parents/guardians and other adults in a child’s life outside of school. Research shows that strong, ongoing relationships between families and school personnel are critical to positive outcomes in students. Likewise, children who read at grade level are more likely to maintain an interest in and be successful at learning, and thus have incentives to say “yes” to good behavior and “no” to temptation to misbehave. Programs that support these outcomes can be considered “root solutions” to fundamental challenges, with wide-ranging and long-term benefits throughout a child’s life. Pros

Data shows that third grade reading proficiency is critical to future success in a classroom environment.

A multitude of studies show that parent/family engagement in a student’s life and with a student’s school has a direct correlation to that student’s school readiness, behavior, attendance, and literacy outcomes, among many other outcomes. Improving the relationship between schools and families is likely to be a root solution to many negative outcomes in a student’s life, and should be a priority goal.

FCPS is starting the process of making literacy by the end of third grade a priority, one that is tied to evaluation of instructor performance at the end of the year. For students who come to class and continue to fail, both the instructor and student need to be held accountable. Teachers inherit students who were not reading on grade level in prior years and now are tasked with bringing them up to speed. A task force could address concerns teachers have with conditions and contributing factors that are or have been out of their control.

Literacy is tied to behavior and is directly tied to achievement and fundamentally necessary to it. Poor performance, along with misbehavior, absenteeism and lack of participation in extracurricular activities are considered to be among signs of disengagement that are linked to dropouts. Studies show that where there is one “sign,” the others exist or can follow.

FCPS has a multitude of literacy approaches. Many of these may be successful, but it would benefit all schools if they were reviewed comprehensively for those that demonstrate success so these success factors can be replicated among schools.

A task force could address root causes of illiteracy, including those associated with different demographics, and work with county services to identify existing cross-functional and cross-jurisdictional solutions, identify where improvements could be made and new ones adopted, and determine which are not successful. Such an approach could identify economies of scale and eliminate redundant programs.

A task force that includes all stakeholders, especially classroom teachers, parents from at-risk populations, child development and literacy experts and other advocates, reduces the dangers of “what we don’t know we don’t know” and ensures that problem identification and recommended solutions are realistic and achievable.

Page | 34

Fairfax County is home to a large population of experts willing to donate time for improvements in education. Because FCPS staff are already suffering from work overload, a task force can take advantage of expertise to supplement that of FCPS staff and share the burden of tackling the attendance problem.

Cons

A task force would require resourcing and demand quality time from everyone involved, a precious commodity. It would have to be highly focused and demonstrate value.

The school board would have to demonstrate a commitment to the effort by seriously considering all recommendations, and being open to a range of resourcing options for them. Long-term thinking would be necessary because evidence so far suggests that some solutions would have a “return on investment” seen only in out-years — higher achievement rates tend to create benefits seen only after students graduate.

Illiteracy and low literacy levels are difficult challenges to address because so much contributes to them. For example, students, like adults, have every incentive to hide illiteracy, and do, so even identifying it can be a trial. The attitude of “good enough” — and the fact that “good enough” is better than “failure” — can thwart focused interventions. Parents who are themselves illiterate can have difficulty supporting interventions.

Early childhood intervention, from post-natal support onward, is shown to contribute to literacy, but is out of the direct realm of FCPS. However, cross-functional approaches are possible, especially since families with older children in the system can be reached to influence younger children.


Low-income students, ESL students, students from families that are non-native English speakers and those with disabilities make up the largest populations of students with low literacy rates. Many of these do not have ready access to appropriate reading resources outside the classroom — and sometimes in the classroom. Many don’t have computers at home. They lack extracurricular support for or exposure to reading resources. They lack transportation to libraries or community centers or other venues where they can be exposed to resources or to the idea that reading is important.

Cultural awareness of why certain Black, Latino, low-income kids, ESOL students, and students with disabilities may suffer from low literacy is essential to address disproportionality in related outcomes, such as behavior issues.

1 http:www.palmbeachschools.org/dre/documents/Predicitng_Graduation_and_Dropout.pdf

Page | 35

Recommendations Proposed by Working Group 3 STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

Students with disabilities — who comprise only 14% of the population — continue to make up approximately 40% of all suspensions and expulsion cases before the FCPS Hearings Office. The disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities is a complex issue to address and involves many different factors. Some of these factors are associated with the deficits of an individual child, such as impulsivity, difficulty in weighing choices or academic failure. However, other issues which contribute to the problem of the disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities lie with factors independent of the child. These include, but are not limited to: a lack of effective IEP services and supports, inappropriate educational placements, failure to plan for the transition from middle to high school (9th graders have the highest rate of suspension), incomplete understanding of the child's disability, and inappropriate expectations. The Fairfax County School Board must acknowledge these persistent problems and set priorities in addressing them.

Work Group 3 reviewed the issues surrounding the legal rights and unique needs of students with disabilities and investigated the codes of conduct of numerous school divisions in crafting its recommendations. In many of the new measures it proposes incorporating into the SR&R, Work Group 3 sought to reflect the best practices identified and successfully implemented by other school districts. Work Group 3 also consulted with members of the Advisory Committee on Students with Disabilities to help ensure its recommendations reflected local community values and parent concerns.

Work Group 3 endeavored to provide solutions to reduce the disproportionate number of suspension of students with disabilities by clarifying requirements, improving safeguards and putting into place better tools for the Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) process. Fundamental to these recommendations is the move toward practices that focus on prevention and intervention and that utilize suspension and expulsion only after a clear pattern of misbehavior has been established or in "special circumstances" defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) — i.e., incidents involving drugs, weapons or "serious bodily injury". An approach toward discipline that relies on prevention and intervention reflects community values that are fundamental to the spirit and purpose of IDEA and the School Board’s expectations in Student Achievement Goals 2 and 3.

Page | 36

Recommendation 3.1: Identify and Include in the SR&R Community Values Regarding the Discipline of Students with Disabilities

That the Fairfax County School Board (School Board) identify and include in a preamble to an SR&R section on students with disabilities — in addition to the statutory and regulatory requirements regarding the discipline of students with disabilities — the following community values which are fundamental to the spirit and purpose of both federal law and [FCSB] Student Achievement Goals 2 and 3.

Every student is to be treated fairly. The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and Virginia's implementing regulations recognize that students with disabilities have a right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and that their unique educational needs require special accommodation in the administration of school discipline. Our community acknowledges that fairness does not mean the same as equal and that we have an obligation to respond to the behaviors of students with disabilities based on their unique needs and circumstances.

The purpose of education is to develop productive members of society. According to IDEA, schools must focus equally on the academic, functional and behavioral success of students. In addition, the School Board has established expectations for behavior in Student Achievement Goals 2 and 3. Accordingly, prevention and intervention need to be the primary approaches to dealing with the challenging behaviors of students with disabilities. In addition, schools need an accurate understanding of the underlying reasons for misbehavior in order to determine to the appropriate disciplinary pathway to ensure student success.

Students need equally safe and supportive learning environments. IDEA, state regulations and research-based practices offer school personnel positive behavior approaches to respond to students with disabilities whose challenging behaviors interfere with their learning or the learning of other students. Clear procedures exist for schools to deal with exigent circumstances, but the legal requirements in dealing with the discipline of students with disabilities reflect a community value that healthy school communities require measured and restorative responses to misbehavior.



IDEA permits removing a student with a disability from his/her IEP placement only for behavior that is not related to a child's disability or in "special circumstances" defined by law (i.e., incidents involving drugs, weapons or "serious bodily injury") — USC 300.530(g). Fundamental to these restrictions is a move toward practices that focus on prevention and intervention and utilize suspension and expulsion only as a last resort. Nonetheless, students with disabilities — who comprise only 14% of the population — continue to make up approximately 40% of all suspensions and expulsion cases before the FCPS Hearings Office. The disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities is a complex issue to address and involves many different factors. Some of these factors are associated with the deficits of an individual child, such as impulsivity, difficulty in weighing choices or academic failure. However, other issues which contribute to the problem of the disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities lie with factors independent of the child. These include, but are not limited to: a lack of effective IEP services and supports, inappropriate educational placements, failure to plan for the transition from middle to high school (9th graders have the highest rate of suspension), incomplete understanding of the child's disability, and inappropriate expectations. The School Board must acknowledge these persistent problems and set priorities in addressing them.

Page | 37

Pros

This provision addresses the charge of the School Board to the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on the SR&R to, among other things, "ensure consistency with our community’s values, School Board policies, and Virginia laws." The creation of Work Group #3 by the committee reflected the value the community places on students with disabilities — those provided special education services through an IEP — who comprise about 14% of the population but continue to make up approximately 40% of all suspension and expulsion cases before the Hearings Office. With this preamble statement, the School Board has an opportunity to reflect such values in the SR&R.

Cons

May add slightly to the length of the SR&R.

Impact on Diversity

None listed

Page | 38

Recommendation 3.2: Publish Collected Data on Disproportionate Discipline

That the School Board require publication on the FCPS website the state-mandated disciplinary offense and outcome data collected by race, ethnicity, gender, and disability category for each school. This data should be published in a manner that protects the identities of individual students.



This action reflects legislation passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 2012 which requires the Department of Education to collect and annually publish disciplinary offense and outcome data by race, ethnicity, gender and disability category for each school division in the Commonwealth. See HB 367 - 2012 Session. In order for FCPS to report the mandated information to the state, it must collect data from individual schools in the division. Disciplinary data for FCPS should be posted for local review just as it is posted by the state.

Pros

Clearly compiled data made available to the public will assist in determining the causes of the

disproportionate impact of FCPS disciplinary practices on minority students and students with

disabilities. This provision requires no additional staff time and resources as these are already devoted

to compiling data due to state reporting requirements.

Cons

The time and resources to develop and maintain an additional web page or add this data to each school's profile. Impact on Diversity

None listed

Page | 39

Recommendation 3.3: Establish an Advisory Committee to Study Disproportionalities in Discipline

That the School Board establish an advisory committee to include academically and professionally qualified individuals and members of the community to further investigate and address the various factors which cause the disproportionate representation of students with disabilities and minority students in the discipline process.



Students with "emotional disabilities" (ED) are disproportionally suspended with a recommendation for expulsion compared to other students with disabilities. For example, in 2010-2011, students identified with ED comprised 7% of all students with disabilities in FCPS but made up 29% of students with disabilities suspended with a recommendation for expulsion. In addition, Black students are identified as ED twice as often as other students. In 2010-2011, Black students made up 20% of those identified with ED despite comprising only 10% of the entire student population. These factors may contribute to the large number of Black students involved in the discipline cases before the Hearings Office. In addition, FCPS discipline data reveals that students who have been suspended display lower GPAs than average students and suffer from poor academic performance both prior to and after disciplinary actions. One study Working Group #3 identified demonstrated that appropriately addressing the academic deficits of disciplined students — especially those who are unable to read on grade level — reduces recidivism: The Impact of an Intensive Multisensory Reading Program on a Population of Learning-Disabled Delinquents. See ERIC EJ455783 - Annals of Dyslexia, v42, p54-66, 1992. An advisory committee would permit more in-depth review of this data.

Pros

Establishment of an advisory committee enables a more focused review of the causes of and possible solutions for persistent disproportionalities in the FCPS discipline system.

Cons

The time and resources to support an advisory committee. Impact on Diversity

None listed

Page | 40

Recommendation 3.4: Reduce Suspension/Expulsion of Students with Disabilities and

Minority Students

That the School Board, with input from the Advisory Committee on Disproportionality in Discipline (see Recommendation 3.3), develop a plan to target and eliminate within 3 years the disproportionate representation of students with disabilities and minority students involved in cases forwarded to the FCPS Hearings Office.



In 2011-2012, students with disabilities — who comprised less than 14% of the total school population — made up about 40% of all cases brought before the Hearings Office. Of these cases, over 70% involved minority students (42% Black and 29% Hispanic). In addition, regardless of disability status, minority students comprised a disproportionate number of all disciplinary cases forwarded to the Hearings Office — Black students at 4 times and Hispanic students at more than twice the rate of their White peers.

Working Group 3 recommends that the Fairfax County School Board make it a goal to end within 3 years the disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities and minority students. This goal reflects the specific recommendations and actions taken by the Maryland Board of Education and publicized in its report, School Discipline and Academic Success. See http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/42ED8EDA-AF34-4058-B275-03189163882D/32853/SchoolDisciplineandAcademicSuccessReportFinalJuly2.pdf, Page 6: "Disproportionate or discrepant discipline is, we believe, related to the achievement gap. Understanding that relationship is critical. Closing that gap, by improving student learning and performance, needs to be among our highest priorities. Therefore, we propose a regulation that requires Maryland State Department of Education to analyze the impact of school discipline on minority students and special education students within the school system....[and] requires that the school system present to this Board a plan designed to reduce the impact within one year and to eliminate that impact within 3 years."

Goals and annual benchmarks are commonly set by the School Board on a variety of issues. Student Achievement Goals are tracked, measured and reported by the superintendent and his staff. As the disproportionate impact of FCPS discipline policies and procedures on students with disabilities and minority students contributes to the significant academic achievement gaps faced by these populations, the Board has a vested interest in reducing the number of discipline referrals of both students with disabilities and minority students. One clear data point, reported annually, has been the disproportionate number of students with disabilities and minority students referred to the Hearings Office. Establishing an aspirational goal of reducing and eliminating the disproportionate impact of discipline referrals on student with disabilities and minority students is both a clearly stated and measurable objective.

Pros

Eliminating disproportionality in the number of students with disabilities and minority students referred to the Hearings Office will improve the academic success, graduation rates and outcomes of these students.

Cons

This goal will be difficult to achieve within 3 years.

Impact on Diversity

None listed

http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/42ED8EDA-AF34-4058-B275-03189163882D/32853/SchoolDisciplineandAcademicSuccessReportFinalJuly2.pdf


Page | 41

Recommendation 3.5: Establish a Separate SR&R Section on Students with Disabilities

That the School Board establish a separate SR&R section that contains the federal and state requirements regarding the discipline of students with disabilities (see following wording of a new SR&R section which includes existing statutory and regulatory requirements as well as the proposed measures outlined in Recommendations 3.6 through 3.13.)

COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 27 No – 4 No Vote – 1 Away from Table - 1


Students with disabilities have specific rights regarding discipline procedures that are outlined in IDEA 2004 and Virginia's special education regulations. Information regarding these legal requirements must be readily available and easily understood by schools, parents and students. Many other school divisions have separate sections for students with disabilities in their codes of conduct. The following codes of conduct reviewed by Working Group #3 have sections specifically covering students with disabilities:

Philadelphia School District - Philadelphia 2012-2013 Code of Student Conduct

Boston School District - Boston Public Schools Code of Discipline, revised 2006 (Pages 46-52)

New Orleans Recovery School District – NOLA Code of Conduct 2008-2009 (Pages 24-26)

Denver Public Schools - Denver Public Schools Policies and Procedures

San Francisco Public Schools - SFUSD Student and Family Handbook 2012-2103 (Pages 66)

Chicago Public Schools - Chicago Public Schools Policy Manual 2011 (Pages 31,32)

Miami-Dade County Public Schools - Secondary Code of Student Conduct 2012-2013 (Pages 38-40)

Seattle Public Schools - Student Rights and Responsibilities 2011 (Pages 43-45)

Arlington County Public Schools - 2012-13 Arlington Public Schools Handbook (Page 27)

Detailed information about Virginia's procedures is outlined in VDOE's DISCIPLINE OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RESOURCE DOCUMENT. See VDOE Discipline of Children with Disabilities. Unless otherwise noted, this information is the source of the provisions incorporated into the proposed SR&R section on student with disabilities. Additional material was drawn from the model codes of other school jurisdictions.

Pros

This recommendation supports the goal of eliminating the disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities. Including a separate SR&R section on students with disabilities makes information on the requirements about the discipline of these students easily accessible and promotes better understanding of the procedures by schools, parents and students. Clearly stated guidelines on the discipline of students with disabilities helps to ensure consistency in the application of the requirements. In addition, having a separate section on students with disabilities removes from the SR&R the provisions which do not apply to general education students, thereby improving clarity of the document.

Cons

A separate SR&R section on students with disabilities may add to the length of the overall document but provides better information.

Impact on Diversity

None listed

Page | 42

Recommendation 3.6: Implement Existing Tools for the Prevention of Disciplinary Incidents

That the School Board require the following provision in the SR&R section on students with disabilities: When a student’s behavior impedes his/her learning or that of others, the IEP team shall use positive behavioral interventions, strategies and supports, taking one or both of the following actions:

Develop IEP goals and services specific to the child's behavioral needs;

Conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) and develop a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) to address the child's behavioral needs.

In addition, the SR&R section on students with disabilities shall include examples of interfering behaviors, to include but not be limited to, non-disruptive behavior that shows avoidance of learning, disruptive behavior, absenteeism, argumentativeness, defiance, aggression, bullying or reactions to bullying, repeated removal from class and being suspended more than once in a school year.



This recommendation complies with provisions of the Virginia special education regulations (8VAC20-81-160,A,2) which implement the following mandates of federal law: IDEA requires schools, via the IEP team, to consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports for any student whose behavior impedes his/her learning or the learning of others (20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(B)(i)). In addition, a Functional Behavior Assessment (Tier 3) must be conducted to address any behavior that results in a long-term removal (20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(D)) when a child who does not have a Behavior Intervention Plan is removed from his/her current placement for more than 10 school days (e.g., suspension) for behavior that turns out to be a manifestation of the child's disability (20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(F)(i)). A Functional Behavioral Assessment should also be conducted, when appropriate, to address any behavior that results in a long-term removal (20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(D)).

Working Group 3's recommendation is intended to encourage more effective use of the existing prevention and intervention tools identified in IDEA to assist students with disabilities whose behavior impedes their learning or that of others. The current SR&R identifies a range of responses for the general student population. As federal and state requirements focus on prevention and intervention of the behavioral needs of students with disabilities, the SR&R section on students with disabilities should specifically state these measures. Prevention is a key to reducing the disproportional suspension of students with disabilities. In addition, prevention will help improve academic performance. In April 2012, FCPS reported that 65% of students suspended with a recommendation for expulsion were on track to graduate before the disciplinary action. In the year following the suspension with a recommendation for expulsion, only 12% were on track to graduate.

Pros

Implementing positive behavioral interventions, strategies and supports will better support students, help reduce discipline referral rates and support the goal of eliminating the disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities.

Cons

These federal and state mandates require adequate funding and resources to ensure they can be successfully implemented.

Page | 43

Impact on Diversity

None listed

Page | 44

Recommendation 3.7: Ensure Consultation with the Student's IEP Team

That the School Board requires the following provision in the SR&R section on students with disabilities:

Prior to making a decision to suspend or recommend for expulsion a student with a disability, the principal (or principal’s designee) of the school shall consult with the student’s case manager and/or other key members of the IEP team, review the student’s IEP – including any Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) – and take into consideration any special circumstances regarding the student.



This proposed new provision reflects suggested actions in the Virginia special education regulations (8VAC20-81-160,A,3,a): "In reviewing the disciplinary incident, school personnel may review the child's IEP and any behavioral intervention plan, or consult with the child's teacher(s) to provide further guidance in considering any unique circumstances related to the incident." Making this measure proscriptive rather than suggestive is intended to provide administrators another tool to support the effort to reduce the disproportionate suspension of students with disabilities. It also promotes use of alternatives to suspension. Information about the unique needs of the student must be obtained and considered prior to, not after, any decision to suspend or recommend for expulsion.

Pros

This provision directly supports the goal of reducing the disproportional suspension of students with disabilities. In addition, it provides the principal with more complete information about a child's special needs prior to taking action to suspend a student with a disability.

Cons

Will necessitate staff training and require a new work flow. Impact on Diversity

None listed

Minority Opinion

The minority agrees that is it is a good/best practice for a school administrator, when practical, to confer with members of a student’s IEP team and to review the student’s IEP prior to making a decision to suspend a student. The Working Group members who presented this recommendation acknowledged that this is already a common practice. Mandating this occur each and every time, however, is unreasonable and unrealistic.

The minority would not have disagreed if the wording in the recommendation “encouraged” school administrators to confer with IEP team members and the IEP, or stated that the School Board sees this as a “best practice,” but mandating it in all cases is too restrictive on school staff. The Working Group rejected recommendations to remove the mandate in all cases.

The School Board should be aware that the regulation cited in this recommendation, as it relates to a recommendation for expulsion (which could result in a student’s “change of placement”) states (emphasis added):

Page | 45

School personnel may consider any unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis when deciding whether or not to order a change in placement for a child with a disability that violates a code of student conduct.

In reviewing the disciplinary incident, school personnel may review the child's IEP and any behavioral intervention plan, or consult with the child's teacher(s) to provide further guidance in considering any unique circumstances related to the incident.

School personnel may convene an IEP team for this purpose.

The cited regulation does not require this consultation occur even for a recommendation for expulsion, let alone a one-day suspension. The minority could understand if the School Board wanted to mandate this prior to a principal making a recommendation for expulsion. However, mandating this occur each and every time for lesser disciplinary sanctions is unreasonable.

.

Page | 46

Recommendation 3.8: Accommodate Written Statements by Students with Disabilities


If any written statement is requested of a student with a disability, school staff will consult the IEP or 504 plan and ensure all accommodations are provided to the student.



This proposed new provision responds to parent concerns. A student with a disability should be provided all accommodations required by his/her IEP to address deficits when communicating about an event or sequence of events in writing. For example, the student may receive the following necessary IEP accommodations: extended time, frequent breaks, graphic organizer, communication board, opportunity to respond orally, respond using word processor, dictation in English to scribe, etc.

Pros

This provision will permit students with disabilities to receive appropriate IEP accommodations to communicate in writing about a disciplinary incident.

Cons

Staff scheduling and time.

Impact on Diversity

None listed

Page | 47

Recommendation 3.9: Define Composition of the Manifestation Determination Review Team That the School Board require the following provision in the SR&R section on students with disabilities: in conducting a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR), neither the principal nor the authority figure involved in a disciplinary incident with the student may serve as members of the MDR team or participate in the decision but may provide information regarding the incident. The parent will be informed prior to the meeting of all school attendees. COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 12 No –19 No Vote – 2

FAILED: See Appendix H for complete text

Page | 48

Recommendation 3.10: Delineate and Document all Factors for Manifestation Determination Reviews That the School Board requires the following provision in the SR&R section on students with disabilities: The MDR form shall include a checklist to document consideration of all factors outlined in the Virginia Department of Education’s Guidance on Manifestation Determination in making a determination of causality. These factors include, but are not limited to:

1. The child’s IEP, placement, school evaluations, observations and information supplied by the parents, including private medical or mental health providers with proper releases;

2. The child’s discipline history (total number of suspensions, the proximity of multiple suspensions and the length of each suspension) and all assessments;

3. The type of misconduct in relation to the child’s discipline history (isolated instance vs. repeated; whether the child’s behavior is substantially similar to behavior in previous and current incident);

4. The factors contributing to the misconduct such as unique circumstances, information from observers of the incident, environmental factors, educational program, home factors and the child’s mental, physical and developmental challenges;

5. The effectiveness of the goals, services and supports in the IEP to prevent similar misbehavior and the strategies to reinforce desirable behavior;

6. The effectiveness of the child’s Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) in relationship to the misconduct and whether the BIP is based on research-based practices;

7. In the absence of a BIP, whether more information is needed through the administration of a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) or other evaluations.

8. Other factors as determined by the MDR team. COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 17 No – 14 No Vote – 2


This provision complies with provisions of the Virginia special education regulations: 8VAC20-81-160,D,3. Additional information on factors to review is outlined by the Virginia Department of Education's Guidance on Manifestation Determination. See http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/student_conduct/manifestation_determination.pdf.

Working Group #3 suggests the model MDR form developed by the JustChildren program of the Legal Aid Justice Center of Virginia for use by FCPS: "Guide to the Manifestation Determination Review." See the JustChildren MDR form attached as APPENDIX B.

Using a checklist to identify a wide variety of factors or criteria for identification of a student's disability or consideration of IEP services is a common practice in FCPS. For example, a checklist is used on forms to account for the various criteria considered in making special education eligibility decisions, to conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment, and to identify the necessary IEP accommodations a student with a disability needs in order to access the general education curriculum.

FCPS includes a checklist on its MDR form, but it is limited to 5 items and does not account for the full

range of information outlined by the Virginia Department of Education in its guidance to local school

divisions. While the current MDR checklist contains an area to enable the MDR TEAM to include “other

information” for consideration, a more complete list of factors with greater specificity should be

reflected on the form in order to ensure a complete and thorough review.

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/student_conduct/manifestation_determination.pdf

Page | 49

Pros

Promotes a more in-depth discussion of a student's disability and its impact on his/her behavior.

Cons

Will require revision of the MDR form to enumerate the factors that must be considered and to record the rationale. May extend MDR meetings due to the necessary in-depth review of causality factors.

Impact on Diversity

None listed Minority Opinion

The minority appreciates the sentiment of this recommendation, but has problems with the details, and with the Legal Aid Center’s cited form.

The notion that the MDR team must document consideration of all factors included in the recommendation and in the recommended form, in every case, makes little sense, and is not required by state regulation/law.

The VDOE document cited states that the school system must consider three factors when conducting an MDR:

Is the conduct in question caused by the child’s disability?

Does the conduct have a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability?

Is the conduct in question the direct result of the school division’s failure to implement the IEP?

Many of the considerations listed in the recommendation may be irrelevant in particular cases. Also, while the VDOE guidance document cites “practice tips,” and notes that “other important factors IEP teams may consider include” items detailed in the recommendation, these are suggestions for the committee to consider - not a list of things that must be considered.

If the MDR committee is required to “check the box” to prove it considered the items on the suggested form (relevant or not), other important factors may very well be ignored. Other issues that could be relevant, but not included or excluded by the guidelines include:

whether the misconduct involved any element of pre-planning;

whether the student’s IEP goals concern the type of behavior at issue;

whether the student is typically able to control his/her behavior in the school setting;

whether the student has been making educational progress;

whether the student/parents have been in agreement with the IEP

There are likely more. However, by imposing a one-size-fits-all-form this recommendation would likely squelch the broader conversation that should occur and restrict the conversation to the “required form.”

Page | 50

Recommendation 3.11: Communicate Manifestation Determination Review Findings and Rationale


The MDR decision and written rationale shall be made available to the appropriate Hearings Officer prior to the proceedings, unless the parent agrees to conduct the MDR and the hearing on the same date. A copy of the MDR’s findings and written rationale shall be made part of the student’s discipline file.



This proposed new provision is based on parent concerns that MDRs have occurred after a hearing has already been held, and that the Hearings Officer does not know if the behavior was caused by the disability at the time he/she hears the case. Federal law and state special education regulations require an MDR to be held if the school is "contemplating a removal that constitutes a change in placement for a child with a disability who has violated a code of student conduct." (8VAC20-81160,D,1) Holding a hearing represents more than just "contemplating" a removal. The New Orleans Recovery School District includes the following statement in its Student Code of Conduct to ensure a correct timeline: "A hearing will not be scheduled until all required [MDR] documents are received by the Special Education Discipline Office." See http://www.stopschoolstojails.org/sites/default/files/New%20Orleans%20Student%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf - Page 25.

Pros

Ensures the Hearings Officer knows whether the disability was causal before proceeding with a hearing that may change the IEP placement of a student with a disability.

Cons

Requires prompt scheduling of MDRs. Impact on Diversity

None listed

http://www.stopschoolstojails.org/sites/default/files/New%20Orleans%20Student%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf


Page | 51

Recommendation 3.12: Modifying IEP Placements with the Hearings Office


If the IEP team determines that restrictions imposed by the Hearings Office would preclude placing the student in an appropriate educational setting to serve the child’s unique needs, or would otherwise interfere with the ability of the child to meet his/her IEP goals, then the IEP team shall formally request the Hearings Office to modify the restrictions. Parents will be informed in writing of the process to request exceptions to any restriction placed on the student (such as prohibiting the student’s presence on regular school grounds).



This proposed new provision reflects current practice of the Philadelphia School District of entrusting IEP teams with determining the appropriateness of an alternative placement. See http://www.fcps.edu/dss/ips/srr/committee/resources/sections/documents/samples/other-jurisdictions/PhilPACodeofConduct.pdf - Discipline for Students with Disabilities. "The IEP team determines the appropriateness of an interim alternative educational setting." It is also intended to respond to parent concerns over the ability of the IEP team to select the most appropriate placement to serve the child's needs in certain circumstances, such as when the identification of the child's disability category has changed as part of a reevaluation prompted by a disciplinary incident.

Hearings Office placement restrictions on students with disabilities may prohibit IEP teams from placing students in the most appropriate program to meet their special education needs. In addition, Hearings Office restrictions may deny students access to activities which are important to their functional success. IEP teams should be permitted to exercise their best judgment and expertise in determining the most appropriate services and placement.

Pros

Enables IEP teams to exercise their responsibility in determining the most appropriate placement for a student with a disability.

Cons

May add an additional step to the process should an IEP team submit an appeal. Impact on Diversity

None listed Minority Opinion

It is the belief of the minority that a special education student is assigned to the “most appropriate” educational environment by the IEP team. As such, if the Hearings Office places any restriction on that placement – due to the student’s misconduct – the IEP team should always decide the restriction limits the “most appropriate placement” for the student.

This recommendation appears to proceed from a fundamentally incorrect notion that IDEA-eligible students whose misconduct are found “not causal” have all the rights – including, perhaps most

http://www.fcps.edu/dss/ips/srr/committee/resources/sections/documents/samples/other-jurisdictions/PhilPACodeofConduct.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/dss/ips/srr/committee/resources/sections/documents/samples/other-jurisdictions/PhilPACodeofConduct.pdf

Page | 52

importantly, the right to a placement in the “least restrictive environment” – as do those who have not been disciplined. Emphatically, that is incorrect. The assertion that Hearings Office restrictions must not “preclude placing the student in the most appropriate educational setting to serve the child's unique needs, or would otherwise interfere with the ability of the child to meet his/her IEP goals” is incorrect. There are times when a student cannot be returned to the previously determined “least restrictive environment” without jeopardizing the safety of others or permitting ongoing significant disruption to the educational environment to the detriment of other students.

The appropriate, relevant question is whether the restriction prevents the student from participating in the general curriculum to the extent appropriate, and towards progressing on his/her IEP goals. If, in some exigent circumstance, the restriction is so onerous that it would deprive the student of an ability to progress on his/her IEP goals in any setting permitted, then the decision should be reviewed. Such a circumstance is so rare (and perhaps nonexistent), that adding this to SR&R seems unwarranted.

Finally, it should be noted that any Hearings Office decision that restricts a student’s ability to return to his/her school is subject to School Board review upon appeal by the parent.

Page | 53

Recommendation 3.13: Evaluate a Student's Ability to Comprehend the SR&R


The IEP of every student with a disability shall indicate whether or not the unique special needs of the student necessitates that he/she be exempt from any required acknowledgement of the SR&R. For example, some students with a significant intellectual, developmental or physical disability may be unable to comprehend or generalize the requirements of the SR&R.



This proposed new provision is based on current practice of Boston Public Schools. See Boston Public Schools Code of Discipline - Page 46. IEP teams are responsible for determining the most appropriate services and supports for a student with a disability. This provision addresses a fundamental competency issue as some students have an impaired ability to know and understand the code of conduct and should not be required to sign acknowledgement of the SR&R. It is appropriate for the IEP team to determine the degree to which an individual child is able to comprehend and comply with the SR&R. IDEA continues to provide for emergency discipline measures and students with disabilities may be remove from their IEP placement to an interim alternative education placement for up to 45 school days. In the case of "special circumstances" (e.g., drugs, weapons or "serious bodily injury") — USC 300.530(g).

Pros

Enables IEP teams — who know the child best — to assess the ability of a particular student to comprehend the requirements of the SR&R.

Cons

This will place an additional responsibility on IEP teams. School personnel will need to keep track of which students are exempt from signing the SR&R.

Impact on Diversity

None listed

Page | 54

Recommendation 3.14: Expand Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, Restorative Justice and Peer Mediation That the School Board requires implementation, with fidelity in every school within FCPS, of school-wide Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) as outlined by the USDOE Office of Special Education Programs, with special focus on Tier 2 interventions, and recommend the integration of Peer Mediation and Restorative Justice practices into the discipline process. The School Board must provide resources, time and training necessary for implementation. COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 13 No – 17 No Vote – 4


Page | 55

Recommendation 3.15: Provide Additional Parent Resources

That the School Board requires inclusion of a wide range of resources in the Parent Companion Guide to the SR&R to include a list of actions parents may take whenever students present challenging behaviors. For example:

Request a parent-teacher conference

Consult with school psychologist

Consult with school social worker

Request to meet with the monitor/intervention team

Request an evaluation for special education by the school's Local Screening Committee

Request a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)

Utilize the FCPS Parent Resource Center

Contact FCPS Intervention and Prevention Services (http://fcps.edu/dss/ips/index.shtml)

Contact local organizations for various disability issues (e.g., NAMI, CHADD, ASNV, etc.)

Take a Fairfax County parenting class

Contact Fairfax Partnership for Youth



Clear information on resources to prevent behaviors that can cause disciplinary actions to arise can help parents and students prevent and/or reduce such behaviors.

Pros

Sharing information regarding school and community resources will help direct parents to additional resources and enable them to partner with the school in managing the challenging behaviors of their children.

Cons

This section may add to the length of parent companion guide. Impact on Diversity

None listed

Page | 56

Recommendations Proposed by Working Group 4 PARENT INVOLVEMENT

Recommendation 4-1: Parental Notification

WITHDRAWN: Similar to Recommendation 5.17; See Appendix H for complete text

Page | 57

Recommendation 4.2: Second Chance Program

That the Fairfax County School Board establish a Second Chance Program similar to that adopted by Arlington Public Schools (APS); the difference being that it be offered to students regardless of grade level (K-12). If parents are not able, transportation will be provided by FCPS. School Board should consider opening additional AOD sites.

A student who has violated the prohibited substance use policy for the first time and whose conduct would constitute a misdemeanor under Virginia law is eligible for placement in the “Second Chance” program in lieu of suspension.

The student shall receive the following: mandatory assignment to FCPS’ five day Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Intervention Seminar as part of the original suspension. The days of absence from school shall be excused, and make-up work shall be provided by the school during the period of suspension if the student successfully completes the AOD Intervention Seminar and any other condition (including a drug screen and assessment) within 30 days.

If a student placed in the program in lieu of suspension fails to successfully complete the program, including all requirements for follow-up assessments and good behavior, that student will be suspended for 10 days and be recommended for expulsion.



Approximately half the cases considered by the Fairfax County Public Schools Hearings Office relate to students alleged to have been under the influence, use or possession of controlled substances, prescription medications or alcohol. Students found to have engaged in such behavior incur suspensions of 5 or more days and possible recommendations for expulsion. An alternative approach is recommended whereby students engaged in a first- time offense would be offered the option of enrolling in FCPS’ five day Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Intervention Seminar along the lines of the APS Second Chance Program: 1

Pros

Early indications suggest the program has been successful in APS. Of 88 initial participants, two reoffended and one did not complete the program. 3 That translates into a greater than 97% success rate.

Parents indicate that this program allowed them for the first time to become aware their child’s substance abuse situation. 4

Will likely increase FCPS’ graduation rate and decrease the number of drop-outs. Will potentially decrease the number of appeals made of Hearings Office recommendations. Strengthens FCPS’ standing as being focused on public education. Cons

May require increased scheduling of FCPS’ AOD Intervention Seminar. Impact on Disproportionality

As FCPS’ students of color are disproportionately impacted by FCPS disciplinary proceedings, any treatment alternative would have a substantially positive impact on them.

Page | 58

Minority Opinion Fairfax County Public Schools already has an excellent second chance program. In almost all cases, students found to have violated School Board policies related to alcohol and drugs are permitted to attend the Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) seminar rather than stay home on suspension.

Unlike Arlington County, FCPS does require students who bring illegal drugs to school, which endangers the safety of the school, to participate in the formal discipline process. The process quickly gets students into hearings. The committee has recommended ways to further expedite the process. After hearings, students found to have brought illegal drugs to school are also given a second chance – and frequently back at their own school.

A review of the data shows that the FCPS second change program has been more successful than the Arlington County program. In FCPS, for SY 11-12, 269 students were recommended for expulsion for drug/alcohol related offenses. Two of these students were recommended for expulsion a second time; that is a 99.3% success rate. Eighty-six of 88 students successfully completed the Arlington County program without reoffending in SY 11-12 and one failed to complete the program – a 96.6% success rate.

This recommendation states a student who is found to have committed a misdemeanor offense under criminal law should be assigned to the AOD seminar. The simple possession of any amount of marijuana at school constitutes a misdemeanor under the Virginia Criminal Code. Selling up to 14 grams of marijuana in the community is a misdemeanor. Bringing drugs to school is very serious, and endangers the safety and health of the school community. This recommendation, if accepted, will send the message to students that it is acceptable to bring drugs, and as written, any amount of marijuana to school.

Finally, this recommendation creates an unequal treatment of equals: if you do what you’re supposed to, after you have been found in possession, no suspension and recommendation for expulsion, only AOD. If you do not attend AOD, after the exact same infraction, you receive a different punishment.

Notes: 1 – http://www.apsva.us//site/Default.aspx?PageID=12861 2 - http://www.apsva.us/cms/lib2/VA01000586/Centricity/Shared/school%20board%20policies/25-student/25-1.16%20Prohibited%20Substance%20Use.pdf 3 - http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-06/local/35460656_1_nick-stuban-parental-notification-school-officials-question 4 - http://www.sungazette.net/arlington/news/second-chance-program-wins-good-early-reviews-from-parents/article_69e4ba42-2665-11e1-9383-001871e3ce6c.html 5- http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-251

http://www.apsva.us/site/Default.aspx?PageID=12861

http://www.apsva.us/cms/lib2/VA01000586/Centricity/Shared/school%20board%20policies/25-student/25-1.16%20Prohibited%20Substance%20Use.pdf

http://www.apsva.us/cms/lib2/VA01000586/Centricity/Shared/school%20board%20policies/25-student/25-1.16%20Prohibited%20Substance%20Use.pdf

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-06/local/35460656_1_nick-stuban-parental-notification-school-officials-question

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-06/local/35460656_1_nick-stuban-parental-notification-school-officials-question

http://www.sungazette.net/arlington/news/second-chance-program-wins-good-early-reviews-from-parents/article_69e4ba42-2665-11e1-9383-001871e3ce6c.html

http://www.sungazette.net/arlington/news/second-chance-program-wins-good-early-reviews-from-parents/article_69e4ba42-2665-11e1-9383-001871e3ce6c.html

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-251

Page | 59

Recommendation 4.3: Discipline Liaison

Fairfax County School Board should appoint a discipline liaison, considered to be an independent or neutral party, to serve as a point of contact for parents/guardians and students who have questions or concerns about the disciplinary process. The discipline liaison will report to the School Board and his/her duties would include the following:

Provide information on the discipline process

Make available appropriate resources

Communicate discipline-related issues to the FCSB, FCPS and other stakeholder groups, with the goal of continuous improvement



FCPS is Virginia’s most diverse school division. This has many positive and negative qualities. Numerous school disciplinary decisions have caused some unforeseen consequences that have driven a wedge between the school division and community. This wedge has created an absence of trust between the school division teachers and administrators and families.

Pros

Provide an Liaison to assist families with their child’s disciplinary process. Provide an individual to assist with de-conflicting disciplinary process and provide educational

resources.

Cons

None listed


As FCPS’ students of color are disproportionately impacted by FCPS disciplinary proceedings, any procedural change that decreases the likelihood of extended periods out of school would have a substantially positive impact on them. http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/about/ombudsman.aspx

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/about/ombudsman.aspx

Page | 60

Recommendation 4.4: Parent Notification of Student’s Disciplinary Record

School system must ensure that parents/guardians are notified and receive a quarterly report or summary related to the student’s disciplinary action and issues documented in the FCPS Student Information System when new information has been added.



The positive direction of behavior toward established standards of conduct shall be fully understood by teachers, students, and parents/guardians and based upon equitable, reasonable and fair judgment. Schools, communities and parents share responsibility for helping students develop discipline.

Parents/guardians have the right to receive, request and be granted explanation from school administrators about the student’s disciplinary infractions and concerns written in SASI (Schools Administrative Student Information). In addition, parents/guardians shall be informed of behavior, written documentation and disciplinary actions placed in the student’s file and/or SASI report.

For those parents/guardians with technology access, the SASI enables them to identify school behavioral problems, review documented teacher remarks and track discipline comments.

The SASI reporting system allows schools, the community and other stakeholders to analyze and inspect the effect of school discipline infractions, and determine whether or not and to what extent discipline is meted-out and impacts not only minority students but all students.

The SASI database has raised serious concerns about the efficacy of school discipline issues and concerns which later escalates to suspensions or expulsions.

The disparities in rates of referrals and discipline issues of African American and Latino students reported in SASI have proven inequitable patterns and procedures of potential lethal and deadly data.

Pros

Written notification provided quarterly will inform parent/guardian concerning student’s behavior, e.g., specific code designated on the report card

Work with school personnel to prevent discipline problems Share appropriate ideas to prevent and or/resolve discipline problems

Cons

Parent/guardian may not have ability to access SASI Documentation in SASI may be unjustified and unnecessary Summary of discipline issues in SASI can/may lead to suspension or expulsion School officials must demonstrate policies and actions are related to the behavior Summary of discipline issues in the student information system can/may lead to suspension or

expulsion


None listed

Page | 61

Resources

Race Is Not Neutral: A National Investigation of African American and Latino Disproportionality in School Discipline, School Psychology Review, 2011, Vol. 40, no 1, pp. 85 – 107.

African American Disproportionality in School Discipline: The Divide Between Evidence and Legal Remedy, Indiana University.

Internet.Savannah.chatham.k12.ga.us

www.spg.springfield.ma.us/web content/policies/ code of conduct

School Discipline and Academic Success, www.marylandpublicsschools.org

www.annarbor.com/2012

www.aacps.org School Improvement Plan 2010-2011, Anne Arundel, Maryland

Restorative Justices in Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools.org

http://www.spg.springfield.ma.us/web%20content/policies/

http://www.annarbor.com/2012

http://www.aacps.org/

Page | 62

Recommendation 4.5: Ongoing Education

INCORPORATED: Into Recommendation 2.7; See Appendix H for complete text

Page | 63

Recommendation 4.6: Attend Base School During Appeal

The principal shall have the right to permit a student who has appealed a short-term suspension or a recommendation for more serious disciplinary action, or both, to remain in school while such appeal is pending before school officials, provided that the principal determines, in his/her sole judgment, that the student would not pose a danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disruption to the school’s educational programs.



Fairfax County Public Schools’ current appeal policy requires that a student remain in a suspended status until the appeal is resolved. In some cases this can result in a student remaining out of school beyond the length of the initial suspension itself and the risk of that possibility has convinced parents/guardians to avoid appealing a disciplinary decision if at all possible. Until a definitive decision has been reached, it is desirable that a student continue his/her education. It is well established that a student’s base school setting is optimal unless other considerations (as articulated in the proposed wording) are overriding.

Pros

Does not discourage parents/guardians from appealing a disciplinary decision if they believe there are appropriate grounds.

Ensures that the student’s absence from school is limited to the period of suspension that the underlying offense merited.

Decreases extended out-of-school educational support.

Cons

None discernible.


As FCPS’ students of color are disproportionately impacted by FCPS disciplinary proceedings, any procedural change that decreases the likelihood of extended periods out of school would have a substantially positive impact on them.

Page | 64

Recommendation 4.7: Range of Consequences

Recommend that the School Board simplify wording of SR&R and provide a range of consequences for each disciplinary infraction. (Examples are Anne Arundel or Philadelphia Matrix). Consequences should be consistent across FCPS allowing for special circumstances based on the developmental brain of children K-12.

Ensure that the SRR clearly communicates the discipline process in easy-to-understand language:

Identify resources available to parents and students, resources available both in the school, county services and private groups. Resources to include mental health, individual and family counseling, behavior management, life skills, and substance abuse

Define the infractions and consequences



Student of different grades and ages are at different developmental levels, thus their behavior will be different and may call for different responses. The grade level, age and any mitigating circumstances must be used in determining the appropriate consequence.

The Fairfax County School Board’s Mission Statement is: “Fairfax County Public Schools inspires and empowers students to meet high academic standards, lead ethical lives, and be responsible and innovative global citizens.” However, often the school system’s approach to teaching responsibility or addressing the discipline currently becomes punitive or is seen as the equivalent of punishment, rather than corrective. If the school system aims to create responsible and innovative global citizens, then the discipline system should also seek to educate and offer alternative methods that more accurately reflect these high goals.

FCPS is intended to be an educational system not a punitive system. There are groups of educators dealing with the negative effects of poor behavior and missed instructional time. One approach to education that may benefit the discipline system in Fairfax County Public Schools is an appreciation of educating the whole child.7

Pros

Would allow for the creation of a system that punishes inappropriate or poor behavior appropriately. Creates an opportunity to educate a student regarding behavior and/or choices he/she should be

making, rather than simply punishing him/her.

Cons

Some people may perceive that the system is no longer holding student’s accountable or punishing them appropriately.

3

http://www.wholechildeducation.org

http://www.wholechildeducation.org/

Page | 65



Should allow for educators to take into account the grade level, age and mitigating circumstances - which may be a consideration of the socio-economic impact under which the student lives and operates.

1. http://www.stopschoolstojails.org/content/model-discipline-policies

2. http://www.fcps.edu/dss/ips/srr/committee/resources/sections/documents/samples/Report_Advancement%20Project_Model%20Policy_2011.pdf 3. http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/42ED8EDA-AF34-4058-B275-03189163882D/32853/SchoolDisciplineandAcademicSuccessReportFinalJuly2.pdf 4 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2115402,00.html 5. http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_ALTERNATIVES_OUT/ 6 http://www.dignityinschools.org/sites/default/files/Suspension_Report_FINAL_noSpreads.pdf

http://www.stopschoolstojails.org/content/model-discipline-policies

http://www.fcps.edu/dss/ips/srr/committee/resources/sections/documents/samples/Report_Advancement%20Project_Model%20Policy_2011.pdf

http://www.fcps.edu/dss/ips/srr/committee/resources/sections/documents/samples/Report_Advancement%20Project_Model%20Policy_2011.pdf



http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2115402,00.html

http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_ALTERNATIVES_OUT/

http://www.dignityinschools.org/sites/default/files/Suspension_Report_FINAL_noSpreads.pdf

Page | 66

Recommendation 4.8: Collaborative Discipline

FCPS administration, staff and teachers should collaborate with the student’s parent/guardian on effective disciplinary action when situations warrant and the student’s behavior has become chronic and in-classroom measures have not been effective.

To ensure parents are part of the process, SRR should include parent collaboration in the process, as appropriate. To ensure every student becomes a productive member of society, it is critical that parents and the school work together on the whole student.



The SR&R breaks the offenses into three categories. The first or more serious actions include the Assault categories. All of these, (a-e), describe the penalty as “disciplinary measures up to and including a 10 day suspension.”

The next set of offenses is considered Disruptive and Inappropriate Behavior; “Punishment for any of these acts is under the discretion of the principal.”

The last category includes actions involving drugs and alcohol. The punishment ranges from “suspension from school for a minimum of five days and a maximum of 10 days and suspension for 30 calendar days from school activities, including teams, clubs and other school-sponsored activities.” For longer durations of suspension and harsher penalties, SR&R states that parents will be notified, but it does not require parent involvement in the discipline process. This does not support the stated FCPS belief that “a dynamic partnership among students, parents, educators and with the community is critical to meet student needs and provide enriching experiences.”

Pros

Parents know their children better than school officials. They know what motivates their child and what doesn’t, and together with school officials, can establish a punishment that is uniform and fits the offense.

Involving parents helps set discipline that is possible. Parents may not be able to provide supervision or transportation and may suggest an alternative action plan that can be effective.

Children will likely feel supported by their parents, rather than isolated.

Cons

Parents may be difficult to deal with or could perhaps involve two or more sets of parents with different ideas and values.


As FCPS’ students of color are disproportionately impacted by FCPS disciplinary proceedings, any procedural change that decreases the likelihood of extended periods out of school would have a substantially positive impact on them. 1 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2115402,00.html 2 http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_ALTERNATIVES_OUT/ 3 http://www.dignityinschools.org/sites/default/files/Suspension_Report_FINAL_noSpreads.pdf

http://www.dignityinschools.org/sites/default/files/Suspension_Report_FINAL_noSpreads.pdf

Page | 67

Recommendation 4.9: Discipline Committee

Recommend that the School Board establish a Citizens Advisory Discipline Committee. It

should:

Consist of community members and FCPS personnel representing the diversity of Fairfax County. The Committee’s purpose would be to:

Ensure policies are implemented in a fair, impartial and equitable manner aligned with agreed-upon community values.

Monitor effects of discipline processing and recommending data.

Promote and foster trust between the community and school system.

Recommendations will be made at least annually to the School Board.



Since the ad hoc committee started meeting in October of 2012 it has become evident there are many areas of the discipline process that will not be addressed prior to March of 2013. The discipline committee should be comprised of the Fairfax County community and FCPS staff. The membership should reflect Fairfax County’s diverse population. This oversight committee is needed to ensure that recommendations are implemented/enforced to the spirit that they were intended, and that analysis is done on discipline metrics to ensure FCPS is meeting targets, especially as they relate to disproportionality and number of suspensions. In addition, continue to identify disproportionality factors and corrective action to reduce disproportionality issues.

Pros

Community awareness of ongoing efforts to improve the discipline process Ensure that the intent of the ad hoc committee recommendations approved by the SB are

implemented Enhance community trust and provide an honesty broker between the FCPS and community Cons

Additional workload for FCPS staff Data/information from the revised discipline process could be misinterpreted FCSB may not act on disciplinary committee recommendations Impact on Disproportionality

None listed

Page | 68

Recommendation 4.10: Revise Definition of Parent

The SR&R should be edited to remove “in loco parentis” from the definition of parent .



Current wording includes other adult acting in loco parentis to the student. In some situations, this

wording has been interpreted by school personnel to take on the role of the parent and delaying

notification.

Pros

More true definition of parent.

Cons

Some administrators may see this as limiting their ability to do their job




None listed

Reference:

1. http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/mediaroom/Documents/2012-

2013%20Student%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20%28English%29.pdf

2. http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/parents/parents_guide.pdf

1 Center For Disease Control and Prevention, available at http://www.cdc.gov/Features/ConnectToSchool/#one. (citing Resnick MD, Bearman PS, Blum RW, et al. Protecting adolescents from harm. Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. JAMA 1997;278(10):823–832). 1 Id.

Page | 69

Recommendations Proposed by Working Group 5 THE DISCIPLINE PROCESS

Recommendation 5.1: Alternative to Recommendations for Expulsion

FCPS should allow principals to recommend a student’s reassignment to an appropriate alternative educational setting rather than recommend a student’s expulsion for offenses not mandated by SR&R to require a recommendation for expulsion.



At present, principals working with students whom they have determined engaged in “serious misconduct” at school may impose school-based interventions/discipline, or recommend expulsion. As defined by Virginia Code (§ 22.1-276.01) “Expulsion” means any disciplinary action imposed by a school board or a committee thereof, as provided in school board policy, whereby a student is not permitted to attend school within the school division and is ineligible for readmission for 365 calendar days after the date of the expulsion. It is the belief of the ad hoc committee that principals are currently required to recommend expulsion for some students they actually believe should not be expelled from FCPS, but rather reassigned, for a period of time, to an alternative educational setting. Principals should be given the discretion to recommend a disciplinary sanction less than expulsion when they believe that assignment to an alternative educational setting is the appropriate recommendation.

Pros

Allows principals the discretion to recommend a disciplinary sanction that better reflects their views on the appropriate disciplinary outcome for the individual student involved.

Parents of students recommended for reassignment to an alternative educational setting can understand that the principal’s recommendation is not that the student be denied all educational services, but rather assigned temporarily to an alternative setting.

There would be no recommendation for expulsion on the student’s discipline record. Cons

None listed


None listed

Page | 70

Recommendation 5.2: In Lieu of Suspension

FCPS should allow students to attend the Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Seminar in lieu of suspension for eligible substance abuse related offenses.



Under the current SR&R, students suspended after having been discovered to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs at school, or in possession of drug paraphernalia at school, may attend the AOD seminar and have “their days of absence marked as excused.” The suspension remains on the student’s discipline record. Changing the wording in SR&R to “In lieu of suspension…” will allow the students who successfully complete the AOD seminar to have no suspension recorded in their scholastic records.

Pros

More families would be encouraged to participate in the AOD intervention seminar. Students who successfully complete the AOD seminar could avoid having to report an out-of-

school suspension when applying to college, employment or the military. Cons

If no transportation is available (as is currently the case), this could increase the suspension rate disproportionality for certain student groups.


None listed

Page | 71

Recommendation 5.3: School Board Timelines

The Fairfax County School Board should be required to issue discipline decisions in a more timely fashion. It is the recommendation of the ad hoc committee that the decisions be made and issued as quickly as possible and that, absent exigent circumstances, the decisions be issued no later than 10 working days after the matter is forwarded to the School Board.



Currently, student discipline matters forwarded to the School Board are considered either by a three-member committee or by the entire School Board in a closed meeting. The established School Board calendar and the appeal process outlined in regulation 2611 often result in the School Board rendering discipline decisions one month or more after a student is suspended from school. This is detrimental to the educational and emotional development of the student. According to data presented at the April 16, 2012, School Board Work Session related to the discipline process, discipline matters forwarded to the School Board for action leads to a student remaining on suspension for, on average, a total of 25.52 school days before a final decision is issued. This adds approximately 14 school days to a student’s suspension as the student awaits a final School Board decision.

Pros

Students return to school more quickly Families will not have to deal with prolonged stress as they wait for the School Board process to

conclude Families will not be discouraged from appealing due to the expected prolongation of the student’s

OSS. Cons

The School Board may have to meet more frequently for issues related to student discipline The School Board may have to meet in closed meetings on days they are scheduled to participate

in work sessions.


None listed

Page | 72

Recommendation 5.4: Appeal Placements

Allow students who appeal a Hearings Office decision to enroll in the educational setting recommended in the Hearings Office decision pending final resolution of the student’s appeal. Such enrollment pending appeal is not automatic but shall be allowed if the parent of the student so desires.

COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 31 No – 0 No Vote – 1 Away from Table – 1


Under regulation 2611, students who appeal Hearings Office decisions remain on out-of-school suspension pending the issuance of a decision by the School Board. Data reveals that it can take as many as 30 days for the School Board to issue decisions. Allowing, at the parents’ request, the student to enroll in the educational placement previously approved by the hearing officer will allow the student to receive face-to-face instruction during the appeal process. By allowing the student to enroll in the setting proposed by the hearing officer, FCPS could ensure the safety and productivity of the school environment while offering the suspended student direct instruction pending the appeal. If the School Board overturns the hearing officer decision, the student would be permitted to return to his/her previous school setting. If the School Board upholds the decision, the student could simply continue attending classes in his/her assigned alternate educational setting.

Pros

Reduces the amount of time students are not in school, receiving direct instruction. Students and parents will not be dissuaded from exercising their right to appeal simply because

that decision results in the student being kept out of school for an extended period of time. Cons

Availability of facilities and staff to implement recommendation. This recommendation could be cumbersome for the receiving “educational setting” to implement

and disrupt that program. Impact on Disproportionality

None listed

Page | 73

Recommendation 5.5: Alternative Settings Within Schools or Pyramids

FCPS should consider establish “alternative educational settings” (akin to alternative learning centers or alternative high schools) in all middle, high and secondary schools.

COMMITTEE VOTE: YES – 30 No – 2 No Vote – 1


The will of the School Board appears to be that, when possible, students should be allowed to remain in their base school/pyramid following discipline hearings. As of this date, FCPS provides only one alternative learning center serving middle school students (on the campus of Holmes Middle School) and two alternative high school and/or alternative learning center programs serving high school students (on the campuses of Mountain View and Bryant). As such, establishing alternative educational settings within the secondary schools would allow these students to maintain their relationships with their base schools. Additionally, this recommendation may allow more students to participate in VHSL or other extra-curricular activities as they could more readily be declared “students in good standing” by a principal, rather than having to wait to be returned to their base schools.

Pros

Affected students (and families) could maintain relations with staff who already have established relations with the student and/or family.

This recommendation is in the spirit of previous School Board members’ expressed comments that it is in the best interest of students to be returned to their base schools following discipline hearings.

Students may be able to access more robust instructional and/or extracurricular programs if they are permitted to remain in programs located within their base schools.

Cons

Cost implications may be significant. Perhaps consider establishing such programs by each pyramid or cluster.

Data provided by the Office of Professional Learning and Accountability for FY2010 and FY2011 shows that students returned to their base schools following discipline decisions made by the Hearings Office or School Board are more likely to commit additional offenses required to be reported to the Virginia Department of Education during the remainder of the same school year than students assigned to different regular schools or alternative schools. As such, returning additional students to their base schools may lead to a higher number of students committing additional offenses.

Based on the data in number (previous bullet), if more students are returned to their base schools following discipline hearings and commit additional VDOE reportable offenses, it is reasonable to believe these students may disrupt the learning environment for all other students.

Victims of students previously assigned to alternative programs may have their “Offenders” returned to their campus.


None listed

Page | 74

Recommendation 5.6: Student Transportation to Alternative Settings

FCPS should provide transportation for all students assigned to nontraditional schools as a result of discipline decisions issued by the Hearings Office or School Board.



As of the 2012-2013 school year, the only regular education students not provided transportation to nontraditional school programs after decisions issued by the Hearings Office or School Board are students assigned to the interagency alternative schools (IAS) programs (Computer Enhanced Instruction [CEI] or Transition Support Resource Center [TSRC]). The previous year, regular education students assigned to alternative high schools and IAS programs were not routinely provided with transportation services. Data provided by the Office of Professional Learning and Accountability revealed that attendance rates declined for students the year after having been recommended for expulsion. As these students were often assigned to alternative high schools and IAS programs, it is likely that a contributing factor in the decline in attendance rates was due to, at least in some part, the lack of transportation services provided.

Pros

Increased attendance rates for students assigned to IAS programs. Increased attendance rates for students assigned to IAS programs is expected to increase student

achievement for students assigned to IAS programs.

Cons

Cost of providing transportation and related administrative costs. Cost of providing this service could divert resources available for students not recommended for

expulsion.


None listed

Page | 75

Recommendation 5.7: Packet

The Hearings Office should automatically provide all parents of students recommended for discipline action with a copy of the “discipline packet,” (redacted as necessary) that has been forwarded to the Hearings Office. The packet should be made available to the parents no later than two working days after having been received in the Hearings Office.



Currently, only parents requesting a copy of the discipline packet from the Hearing Office are provided copies of the packet. Some parents do not ask for one and may not, as a result, be as prepared for the disciplinary hearing as they could be. Other parents, for varying reasons, may not be aware of the necessity of making a formal request in order to obtain this information and are equally unprepared for the hearing process. To ensure the transparency of the entire disciplinary process and fairness for all students who are part of the hearings process, a copy of the discipline packet (redacted as necessary) should be provided to parents of all students recommended to the Hearings Office.

Pros

All parents and students will be fully knowledgeable of information to be considered by the Hearings Office or School Board at discipline hearings.

Cons

Added clerical and materials cost and burden to redact and provide packet. Added clerical burden may require additional staffing that may divert resources from other

programs. Impact on Disproportionality

None listed

Page | 76

Recommendation 5.8: Hearing Attendance

FCPS should allow parents and students to bring more than one additional person to discipline hearings conducted by the Hearings Office.



Currently, families are permitted to bring only one additional person to discipline hearings. School officials may bring as many personnel as they choose. This imbalance is not fair to the student and may restrict families from bringing necessary support to hearings.

Pros

Parents and student could have additional support at hearings. Would address any real or perceived imbalance of power during hearings. Cons

May lengthen discipline hearings, resulting in the HO’s inability to schedule as many hearings as it currently does on any given day.

Having fewer hearings per day may require additional staffing to ensure hearings and decisions occur within appropriate/required timelines.


None listed

Page | 77

Recommendation 5.9: AOD Seminar Expansion

FCPS should establish at least one additional Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) seminar location.



FCPS currently offers a five-day Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) seminar for students at the Pimmit Hills Center located at 7510 Lisle Avenue in Falls Church, VA 22043. This location is not in proximity for many FCPS students referred to the program, thus creating a substantial barrier to attendance. Additionally, FCPS does not currently provide transportation to the AOD seminar. As a result, it is likely that fewer students access this resource than would if additional AOD seminar locations were established.

Pros

It is likely that more students will participate in the AOD seminar. More students participating in the AOD intervention seminar may result in fewer students engaging

in substance abuse. Fewer students engaging in substance abuse may result in fewer students being assigned

disciplinary consequences related to substance abuse offenses at school. More students participating in the AOD intervention seminar after having been found to engage in a

substance abuse-related offense at school may be less likely to engage in substance abuse offenses at school in the future.

More students suspended for substance abuse issues will be supervised during the day while on suspension.

Cons

Cost of providing transportation and related administrative costs. Cost of providing this service could divert resources available for other students. Impact on Disproportionality

None listed

http://commweb.fcps.edu/directory/map_base.cfm?locid=5102

Page | 78

Recommendation 5.10: AOD Transportation

FCPS should provide transportation to the AOD seminar.



FCPS currently offers a five-day Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) seminar for students at the Pimmit Hills Center located at 7510 Lisle Avenue in Falls Church, VA 22043. This location is not in proximity for many FCPS students referred to the program, thus creating a substantial barrier to attendance. Additionally, FCPS does not currently provide transportation to the AOD seminar. As a result, it is likely that fewer will access this resource as might if transportation were available. IF FCPS is unable to add additional AOD locations, providing transportation will make the AOD seminar available to more students at risk for substance abuse.

Pros

It is likely that more students will participate in the AOD seminar. More students participating in the AOD intervention seminar may result in fewer students engaging

in substance abuse. Fewer students engaging in substance abuse may result in fewer students being assigned

disciplinary consequences related to substance abuse offenses at school. More students participating in the AOD intervention seminar after having been found to engage in a

substance abuse-related offense at school may be less likely to engage in substance abuse offenses at school in the future.

Cons

Cost of providing transportation and related administrative costs. Cost of providing this service could divert resources available for students not recommended for

expulsion. Impact on Disproportionality

None listed

http://commweb.fcps.edu/directory/map_base.cfm?locid=5102

Page | 79

Recommendation 5.11: Diversity Training

All current FCPS personnel and School Board members should be required to receive diversity training to improve communications with, and understandings of, the increasingly diverse FCPS student, parent and family populations. Such training should include curricula designed to raise cultural competence across race, ethnicity, and gender, as well as among students with disabilities. Time for such training should be provided to all current FCPS personnel and School Board members during the 2013-14 school year. Further, all newly hired FCPS employees and newly elected School Board members should receive such training within twelve (12) months of their hiring or affiliation with FCPS. Thereafter, all FCPS employees and School Board members should participate in training on a regular basis, but in no event, less frequently than every five years. FCPS employees and School Board members who have a role in making recommendations or final decisions (i.e., dispositions) regarding suspensions and expulsions should participate in annual refresher training.



Most recently available data provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights,

reveals that:

Boys are far more likely than girls to be expelled from school;

Black and Hispanic students have higher suspension rates than any of their peers; and

Students with disabilities are twice as likely to receive one or more out-of-school suspensions

In FCPS, despite the fact that Black and Hispanic students represent only 31% of the general education student population, they represent 58% of students suspended from FCPS.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2012-data-summary.pdf

FCPS must examine whether and how school personnel’s individual understanding, viewpoints, and assumptions regarding students’ race and ethnicity, gender or disability may affect decisions to discipline students and gain additional skills in communicating discipline concerns to students and their parents. Moreover, as our community and student body become increasingly diverse, FCPS must provide staff and School Board training to increase cultural awareness, knowledge, and skills in order to make appropriate educational and disciplinary decisions for all students.

Pros

Such training will lead to better cultural competency by FCPS officials and could reduce the number of student discipline issues and referrals.

Such training will lead to better school climate leading to students feeling more comfortable and safe at school, resulting in higher student achievement and lower discipline rates.

Such training will lead to better cultural competency by FCPS officials; it is hoped this would reduce disparate discipline rates and help close the student achievement gap.

Cons

Costs for implementing training could divert resources for meeting other FCPS objectives. Training this many personnel within the first year could be very challenging for staff to implement. Impact on Disproportionality

None listed

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2012-data-summary.pdf

Page | 80

Recommendation 5.12: Expansion of Out-of-School Support Program

WITHDRAWN: Similar to Recommendation 2.7; See Appendix H for complete text

Page | 81

Recommendation 5.13: Expedited Entry/Reentry Timelines

Students removed from their base schools due to disciplinary decisions issued by the Hearings Office or School Board should be able to enroll in their newly assigned school as soon as possible. Receiving school officials should ensure that students are able to enroll and attend classes by the third school day following their eligibility to enroll. If necessary, students should be permitted to enroll prior to participating in an entry conference with the school principal or program manager.



There has been testimony that students removed from their base schools following discipline hearings are being delayed in enrolling in their new schools because school-based officials have indicated they are not immediately available for entry conferences or to create student schedules.

Pros

Affected students will enroll in school in a timely fashion. Earlier enrollment should lead to higher academic achievement and allow students to assimilate to

their new schools in a more timely fashion. Cons

If mandated timeline is too short, school staff may have to divert staff from assigned duties to expedite the enrollment process.


None listed

Page | 82

Recommendation 5.14: Local Screening Referral for Students in the Discipline Process

Timelines

FCPS should require and fund school staff to complete the local screening/special education eligibility process in a more timely fashion. It is the recommendation of the committee that this process should be completed as quickly as possible and, unless in the event of exigent circumstances, no later than 20 working days from the date of the referral.



Federal law requires schools to complete the special education evaluation process within 65 days of referral. For students in the discipline process at the time of referral, the process must be “expedited,” but the term expedited is not defined in law or by Department of Education regulations. According to data presented at the April 16, 2012, School Board Work Session related to the discipline process, referrals made to a local screening committee (LSC) during the discipline process led to a student remaining on suspension for, on average, an additional 23 school days, as the local screening/special education eligibility process is completed. In some cases, the delay was much longer. As a result, on average, these students were suspended from school for 34.91 school days before a final decision was issued. While these students are eligible to receive direct, face-to-face instruction – either through the Out-of-School Support on site program or through home-based instructional services during the process – these students remain out of a traditional school setting (regular or alternative) for an extended period of time as this process is completed.

Pros

Students return to school more quickly. Families will not have to deal with prolonged stress as they wait for the screening process to

conclude, which must be completed prior to the issuance of a final decision by a hearing officer or School Board.

Cons

Would require that students referred to the local screening committee (LSC) and involved in the hearings process be serviced ahead of students referred to the LSC who have not engaged in serious misconduct at school and not referred to the Hearings Office. As such, the LSC process for students not in the discipline process may be delayed.


None listed

Page | 83

Recommendation 5.15: Revisions to Teacher Removal of a Student from Class

Notification to Parent Guidelines (as detailed in Regulations 2606 v. 2601)

The Fairfax County School Board should revise Students Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) language related to teacher removal of student from class so that it is consistent with School Board Regulation 2606.4, Teacher Removal of Students from Class. Specifically, SR&R should note that the current written notice requirement placed on classroom teachers in SR&R is applicable only when a teacher removes a student from class for “significant periods of time,” as defined in Regulation 2606 as “an indeterminate time longer than one school day.” It is recommended the following language be added to SR&R following Chapter II, C.1.E. (4) [page 28]:

(5) the removal of students from class in this section related to a decision by the teacher that a student should be discharged and not returned to the classroom for an indeterminate time longer than one school day or that result in the student being removed from the same class on consecutive days.



The current notice provided to parents and families in SR&R states that any time a classroom teacher removes a student from class for disruptive behavior, the teacher will provide written notification to the parents of the student’s behavior. As written, under this notice, when a teacher asks a student to step out of the classroom so that he/she may privately discuss a student’s disruptive behavior, the teacher is required to provide written notice to the parent of the student. While teachers should be encouraged to contact the parent when this occurs, requiring a teacher to provide written notice each time this occurs is overly burdensome to the teacher.

Conversely, the current version of Regulation 2606 (http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/8KJKM7521E72/$file/R2606.pdf) states that such written notice is only required when a student is removed from class and the teacher recommends that the student remain out of class for “significant periods of time.” The regulation also reads that this regulation is related “to a decision by the teacher that a student should be discharged and not returned to the classroom for an indeterminate time longer than one school day.”

The current version of Regulation 2601P (SR&R) reads, in pertinent part:

II, C. 1. Interventions Without Suspension from School

e. Removal from class. Teachers shall have the initial authority to remove a student from a class for disruptive behavior that interrupts or obstructs the learning environment, using the following criteria:

The removal of the student is necessary to restore a learning environment free from interruptions or obstructions caused by the student’s behavior.

The removal of the student occurs only after teacher or administrative interventions have failed to end the disruptive behavior. However, nothing herein shall preclude the immediate removal of a student for behavior that might warrant suspension from school.

The removal of a student is an appropriate response to student behavior that is a violation of the rules of conduct.

Written notice of the student’s behavior and removal from class is given to the parent or guardian by the teacher.

The current version of Regulation 2606 (Teacher Removal of Student from Class) includes all of the above from SR&R and also includes, in pertinent part:

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/8KJKM7521E72/$file/R2606.pdf

Page | 84

The removal of students from class under this regulation relates to a decision by the teacher that a student should be discharged and not returned to the classroom for an indeterminate time longer than one school day.” (emphasis added)

Teachers face increasing mandated requirements adding to their workload and the present language in SR&R adds an additional mandate that, if strictly adhered to, will continue to take important planning time. Adding this language to SR&R will also provide clear notice to parents that a teacher may ask a student to temporarily step out of the classroom due to disruptive behavior without sending written notice. This recommendation is not intended to discourage teachers from contacting parents when students engage in disruptive behavior at school, but rather to avoid including an unreasonable expectation for written notice related to minor disruptive classroom behavior.

Pros

Teachers will be able maintain order in the classroom without overly burdensome follow-up notification requirements.

Will match expectations established under similar School Board regulations The change likely matches current practice with regulation. Cons

Parents may want to receive written notice anytime a student is removed for disruptive behavior, if only for a few moments.

This change could inadvertently send the message that teachers are not expected to contact parents when students engage in disruptive behavior in the classroom.


None listed

Page | 85

Recommendation 5.16: Recommended Revisions to the Mandatory Disciplinary

Sanctions Detailed in the Current SR&R

The Fairfax County School Board should reduce the number of disciplinary infractions that require a principal to suspend a student or recommend expulsion. Further the committee recommends that a principal responsible for students in grades K-6 be given the discretion to impose a disciplinary sanction at his/her discretion for all offenses not required by Virginia Code to require a School Board or Division Superintendent to impose an expulsion absent a finding of special circumstances by the School Board or Division Superintendent. For students in grades 7-12, the committee supports, at a minimum, those below.

Mob Assault - Currently in SR&R, a student found to have participated in a mob assault shall be

suspended from school for 10 days and recommended for expulsion. - The committee proposes this be changed to a student found to have participated in

a mob assault shall be suspended from school at the discretion of the principal and at the principal’s discretion, may be recommended for expulsion.

Distributing alcohol - Currently in SR&R, a student found to have distributed alcohol shall be suspended

from school for 10 days and recommended for expulsion. - The committee proposes this be changed to students found to have distributed

alcohol shall be suspended from school. - Additionally, the committee proposes that in lieu of suspension, the student should

(when found for the first time to have distributed alcohol), be permitted to attend the Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) seminar. As such, if the student successfully completes the AOD seminar, the days of absence shall be marked as excused and no suspension recorded on the student’s discipline record.

Distributing drug paraphernalia - Currently in SR&R, a student found to have distributed drug paraphernalia shall be

suspended from school for ten days and recommended for expulsion. - The committee proposes this be changed to students found to have distributed drug

paraphernalia shall be suspended from school. - Additionally, the committee proposes that in lieu of suspension, the student (when

found for the first time to have distributed drug paraphernalia) should be permitted to attend the Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) seminar. As such, if the student successfully completes the AOD seminar, the days of absence shall be marked as excused and no suspension for the incident will be recorded on the student’s discipline record.

Abuse, distribution for the purposes of abuse or misuse of nonprescription medication - Currently in SR&R, “[t]he abuse (including distribution for the purpose of abuse), or

misuse of nonprescription drugs shall result in a suspension of a length to be determined by the principal and may result in a recommendation for expulsion.

- The committee proposes the removal of the words “or misuse,” as the term “misuse” may be too broad.


Page | 86


SR&R currently requires principals to suspend and/or recommend expulsion for numerous offenses. Many of these requirements are not mandated by Virginia Code, but rather are mandated by School Board policy. Currently, for the above infractions, principals are prohibited from considering all factors when determining whether a suspension or recommendation for expulsion is appropriate; rather SR&R mandates they suspend and/or recommend expulsion.

Pros

Allows individual principals, in the circumstance above, to use his/her personal judgment to make a decision he/she determines is in the best interest of the student and school.

Will likely reduce the overall number of out-of-school suspensions and recommendations for expulsion.

Cons

Inconsistent discipline decisions throughout the school system are more likely to occur. Impact on Disproportionality

None listed

Page | 87

Recommendation 5.17: Revisions Related to the Myriad Issues that Fall Under the General Heading of Parent Permission/Notification

In the event that school administrators suspect an identified student has committed an offense of the type that the school administrator would suspend the student or recommend the student’s expulsion, the principal or other administrative personnel shall make reasonable efforts to notify the student’s parent or guardian prior to questioning the student, unless there is an immediate danger to the student or others or the possibility of the loss or destruction of physical evidence. School administrators shall document parent notification efforts.

Students suspected by school administrators of offenses that could result in that student’s suspension or recommendation for expulsion shall not be asked or told to write or sign a written statement before reasonable efforts are made to notify the parent or guardian and the parent or guardian consents to his/her child writing and/or signing such statement, unless there is an immediate danger to the student or others.

School administrators shall make reasonable efforts to notify a student’s parent or guardian prior to notifying a School Resource Officer of a disciplinary incident and the students involved, unless otherwise required by law. When principals are required by law to immediately report certain misconduct to police, school administrators shall comply with such statutory requirements and shall make reasonable efforts to immediately notify the student’s parent or guardian. School administrators shall document referrals to the SRO or non-school-based police and parent notification efforts.

The committee recommends that the School Board develop a system to ensure that any student whose parent or guardian does not participate, for whatever reason, has access to a third-party adult to serve as an advocate.



Pros

Cons

Minority Opinion

The minority is very concerned about the negative, unintended consequences this recommendation will have on students, staff and the culture of our schools. First, this recommendation creates a culture of distrust among our students and staff. We are telling our children that their teachers and administrators cannot be trusted and that they should not talk to them. This message is being sent at a time when the safety of the school environment is a topic of national debate. If staff cannot speak with children as needed, it will be difficult to protect children from any number of safety concerns including those related to bullying, weapons, and illegal drugs.

This recommendation also will be disruptive to many students. As school officials learn of an incident and students who may be involved, they oftentimes need to ask a student to leave class to discuss the incident. Many times the student called to the office is found have broken no rules or perhaps not involved at all. Currently, when this is the case, the administrator talks with the student and sends

Page | 88

him/her back to class. Under this recommendation, as the student needlessly waits in the office for a parent, he/she is missing valuable instruction.

Further, while this recommendation allows for questioning when “there is an immediate danger,” oftentimes teachers and administrators don’t know there is immediate danger until they speak with a child. It is quite common for school staff to learn of the presence of weapons and drugs at school or of activity that endangers those in school as they discuss other, lesser disciplinary infractions. Simply stated, this recommendation will make it very difficult for administrators to keep the school safe. The law does not require this and no other public school in the country has such a requirement.

Finally, if the School Board provides advocates for students whose parents do not participate in the disciplinary process, that duty should not be imposed on school-based student services personnel as the time required to serve in such a role, including necessary training, would significantly impact the ability of student services personnel to carry out their full plate of existing duties.

Page | 89

Recommendation 5.18: Establishing limits on illegal drugs being brought to school

The School Board should set a limit on the amount of marijuana (or other drugs that would still constitute a misdemeanor) a student may bring to school while still being permitted to participate in the AOD seminar in lieu of suspension or other disciplinary action. The committee recommends the School Board still embrace the concept of a second chance, but as written, the previously approved “Second Chance Program” recommendation does not limit the amount of marijuana, or other illegal drugs (unless the possession of the drug represents a felony), a student can bring to school and still be eligible to attend the AOD seminar in lieu of suspension or other disciplinary action.



___________________________

Page | 90

VI. OTHER ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED

The Committee has recommended the establishment of various groups to continue its work and to delve more deeply into some specific concerns. These included:

Recommendation 4-9 for the establishment of a standing School Board Advisory Committee on Student Discipline

Recommendation 2-9 for creation of an Attendance Task Force

Recommendation 3-3 for an Advisory Committee on Disproportionality of Minority Students and Students with Disabilities

Follows are several other issues recommended for further review, study and assessment:

Meaningful Metrics/Data. Encourage the School Board to ask for more research related to the correlation between discipline/suspension/expulsion and academics in FCPS. The data provided in the PLA report (http://www.fcps.edu/pla/ope/docs/Discipline/disip_year1_full_report.pdf) was cited by Committee members on multiple occasions as a basis for proposed reforms. According to the report, a student referred to the Hearings Office experiences a slight increase in GPA after their referral (figure 13 – a comparison of GPA the year before and the year after referral), while a student receiving only an out-of-school suspension or less sees no increase - to a slight decline in GPA. At the same time, the report shows that the “on time graduation rate” for students referred to the Hearings Office drops from 58% to 10% (figure 15 –SY 10-11). This is a figure was cited on multiple occasions as evidence of the negative impact a referral to the Hearings Office has on a student’s academic progress. The report also notes, however, that a student who receives “other consequences,” or something less than out-of-school suspension, sees a drop in on-time graduation rate from 56% to 11% (figure 15 –SY 10-11). Lacking a comparison to students who receive no disciplinary consequences, it is difficult to understand, whether any cause and effect has been demonstrated. How does GPA increase while on-time graduation rate plummet for students referred to the Hearings Office? Why does the on-time graduation rate plummet for students assigned an in-school suspension or less as well? The School Board should seek data on all aspects related to the impacts of discipline proceedings. Doing so will provide School Board members a better understanding of the issues and possible remedies.

Impacts on Black and Latino Students. The School Board should focus specifically on why there is a disparate impact on black and Latino students (particularly males) with regard to discipline in FCPS. The data presented by the OPE clearly demonstrates that this is a serious issue not just for the general population but when one looks at students with disabilities (i.e., when you look at the disparate impact of discipline of students with disabilities specifically, you will find that even within that population there is a disparate impact of black and Latino students with disabilities).

Involuntary Transfers of Students with Disabilities when MDRs are Found Causal. Recently, FCPS sought to reduce the number of involuntary transfers for students in the general education population; however, involuntary transfers continue at a high rate for students with disabilities. In a large percentage of cases in which the Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) is found to be "causal," the Hearings Office removes students with disabilities from their original schools. In 2011-2012, 48% of students with causal MDRs were removed; in 2012-2013, 39% of students with causal MDRs were removed. IDEA requires

Page | 91

schools to "return the child to the placement from which the child was removed" whenever a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) finds that a child's behavior was caused by or is related to the disability. Nonetheless, in a large percentage of these cases, the Hearings Office does not permit students to return to the school assignment to which the parent gave written consent and is specified in their IEP. Although schools may have equivalent programs and special education services, there are other things about schools which cannot be replicated, such as the child's existing relationships within the school and his/her circles of support.

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Across the FCPS System. A consistent and nationally proven framework for positive behavior approaches exists and should be considered as a model for required implementation in the entire FCPS school system. Susan Barrett, the PBIS National Technical Assistance Center Partner on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports for the PBIS Network, presented on this issue to the full Committee. Based on her presentation, PBA programs are now well established as more effective than previously used systems of discipline. FCPS staff members Dr. Mary Ann Panarelli and Ms. Kathleen McQuillan from FCPS Special Services presented to the committee as well. They said there are already PBA standards in place at FCPS. The committees’ understanding was there is a combination of PBIS, Responsive Classroom, and school-specific PBA (generic positive behavior approach) plans already in place. This was considered laudable and there was understanding that it is being improved yearly. However, without a formal evaluation process there is no real understanding whether these approaches – especially the “hybrid” programs – have been successfully implanted. The following issues arose in committee discussions that should be further explored:

As currently implemented, PBA leaves out much of Tier 2 from PBIS, except in some schools that have taken the initiative to expand this portion of the program. This tier is essential for reaching the goals of reducing suspensions and disproportionality, and for intervening with students in ways that teach them new desirable behaviors they can embrace permanently.

The committee recommended adoption of a range of responses – a matrix system – to behaviors. PBIS is a framework used widely by other school systems that use this matrix because PBIS is ideally suited for such an approach. However, it requires that ALL schools adopt it to reduce inconsistency in implementation.

PBIS allows for consistent data gathering and monitoring for success. With the hybrids and inconsistency in place now, and a rubric that can be implemented unevenly, it is difficult to gage success of this program.

A PBIS system following the national framework could save money because it would allow for economies of scale, especially with training.

Currently, FCPS’s PBA is not a requirement for every school, is implemented unpredictably, and training is not required. This may be contributing to inconsistencies in discipline outcomes at some schools.

School systems such as Anne Arundel County, MD, have data showing lower suspension and expulsion rates using PBIS specifically.

Research and data support PBIS when implemented with fidelity in terms of decreasing discipline problems and increasing desired outcomes, i.e., high school graduation rates and decrease in suspensions and expulsions.

The data so far suggest that, with PBIS, the number of discipline incidents is decreased in all groups, including minorities. However, the data collected to date for PBIS indicates it has not decreased disproportionality for African American males. The disproportionately represented groups in FCPS in the discipline system are males, students in grades 8

Page | 92

through 10, special education students, African Americans, and Latinos. Further work will be needed to consider ways to affect this outcome – and the matrix system (range of responses) to discipline appears to be beneficial.

Third-Party Alternative for Dispute Resolution Process, and Advocate for Child. Among the issues raised by committee members that deserve further consideration is the right of children to an advocate during discipline proceedings, and a right to an impartial hearing. Concerns that arose in discussion:

Parent notification, approved by the committee, would start this process. But absent a parent present, students should be given access to an advocate familiar with the child who is on that child’s “side,” such as a counselor, school psychologist, or liaison, from the beginning of a discipline process that could lead to suspension or expulsion.

In addition, among complaints raised by families engaged in the discipline process is the lack of impartiality that appears to permeate the system. Principals and SROs are brought in from the start, but they represent the school system, as do hearings officers. They and hearings officers act in the manner of justice officials, but don’t follow ordinary judicial practices citizens outside the school system expect. These include protection against self-incrimination, following rules of evidence, and treating children as innocent until proven “guilty” of accusations leveled against them.

Many other school systems have adopted more impartial approaches to discipline than FCPS has. These should be reviewed and considered.

The School Board should investigate why so few Manifestation Determination Reviews (MDRs) are found to be "causal" -- i.e., a manifestation of the child's disability. In a presentation on the 2011-2012 Hearings Office Report, the committee found that students with disabilities -- who make up only 14% of the student population -- comprised almost 40% of the referrals for suspension/expulsion. This was identified as a primary issue of concern in student discipline and led to the creation of the Work Group on Students with Disabilities. The second major issue of concern regarding these students -- which the Work Group on Students with Disabilities attempted to address in a number of its recommendations -- was that very few of the MDRs conducted in each of these cases were found to be causal. (An MDR is required by law whenever there is a suspension of 10 days or more and a potential for a change in the child's IEP determined placement.) In the 2011-2012 school year, 217 Manifestation Determination Reviews (MDRs) were held for students with disabilities who were recommended for reassignment or expulsion by a principal. Based on the current discipline rate for non-disabled students, we should have expected 162 MDRs (75%) to be causal and 55 cases (25%) to be non-causal. Instead, only 18% of these MDRs found a student's behavior to be a manifestation of the student’s disability. (See Question #32 of the Working Document Q&A: http://fcps.edu/dss/ips/srr/committee/resources/documents/WorkingDocument-Q-As.pdf). The issue that FCPS needs to address is this: most students identified for special education have disabilities that affect their brains and therefore their judgment. It is understandable that in times of stress -- whether due to academic struggles, peer pressures, bullying, or anything else -- a student with a condition that impacts the way their brain functions may have difficulty accessing that part of their brain that tells them why and when they should follow the rules. This ability is difficult for young people with still growing brains but often impossible for those who have an essential deficit that impacts their learning and accounts for the fact that students with disabilities get into serious trouble nearly three times as often as their non-disabled peers.

http://fcps.edu/dss/ips/srr/committee/resources/documents/WorkingDocument-Q-As.pdf

Page | 93

VII. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fairfax County School Board appointed the 40-member Ad Hoc Committee on Student Rights and Responsibilities (“the Committee”) in September 2012, with the following charge:

“To perform a comprehensive review of the Fairfax County Public Schools’ Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R), and those manuals of the other school districts, to recommend changes to the School Board by March 2013 that would simplify the language and substantially reduce the size of SR&R and ensure consistency with our community’s values, School Board policies, and Virginia laws.” The Committee met 17 times between October 2012 and March 2013 in order to review relevant research and other information, receive data reports from FCPS staff, and an external expert, and formulate the recommendations contained in this report. Information was presented regarding student suspensions and recommendations for expulsion in Fairfax County Public Schools, as well as a number of state and national reports regarding student discipline issues. A regional representative from OSEP (Office of Special Education Programs from the Department of Education) presented on PBIS. The Committee also convened four Community Dialogue meetings, attended by approximately 150 people, to gather community input on the Committee charge and assess community values. Members of the Committee divided into five working groups in order to brainstorm issues and concerns regarding SR&R, and the working groups discussed what is working well, what can be improved upon, and what might add value to the current FCPS processes. These issues identified were categorized into five areas, and members of the Committee self-selected which of five Working Groups they would join: Group 1: SR&R Document Group 2: Students—Prevention, Intervention & Range of Responses Group 3: Students With Disabilities Group 4: Parent Involvement & Parent Rights Group 5: Discipline Process Over the five months of meetings, each Working Group prepared a set of recommendations for the FCPS School Board, including the rationale for each recommendation as well as pros and cons. Since disproportionality of student discipline was of great concern, each Working Group also reflected upon the impact each recommendation could have in reducing the suspensions and recommendations for expulsion of Black and Latino students, as well as Students With Disabilities. Each Working Group recommendation was discussed by the full Committee, often amended or combined with the recommendation of another Working Group, then voted upon by the full Committee. A total of 59 recommendations were presented by the Committee, with 52 (95%) approved, 3 (5%) failed and 4 withdrawn or combined with others. If a 20% or more of the votes cast for a recommendation were negative (disapproval), the members of the committee who voted against the recommendation were provided the option of writing a brief statement regarding why they opposed the recommendation. Nine minority opinions were filed.

Page | 94

Three major concerns emerged throughout the presentation of Working Group recommendations:

A need for SR&R to change its focus to support, intervention and prevention rather than punishing students for a set list of offenses;

Greater involvement of parents prior to assigning consequences for student violations of SR&R;

Reducing the disproportionate number of disciplinary consequences assigned to Black students, Latino students, and Students with Disabilities.

The specific recommendations are detailed in the body of this report, categorized by the five general topics initially outlined by the Committee:

SR&R Document The Committee recommends that different versions of the code of conduct document be prepared for various users of SR&R—parents, students teachers and administrators. The revised SR&R should include a statement of the philosophy behind student discipline—teaching appropriate behavior and preventing future occurrences of inappropriate behavior. Although a formal policy document needs to exist, simplified language should be used with various users so that SR&R can be readily understood. Readability of the document would be improved not only through simplified language, but also by improving the formatting and graphics, as well as using data organizers. FCPS should receive ongoing feedback from users, perhaps through a standing advisory group. Prevention, Intervention and Range of Responses Schools should promote an atmosphere of positive expectations and interventions when dealing with student misbehavior. The Committee recommends that school administrators develop a wide variety of responses for students when they engage in inappropriate behavior, considering each student’s age and prior incidents as well as cultural and linguistic factors. Adults who know the child well should be consulted prior to assigning consequences—especially parents, teachers and other school staff. In addition to staff training, each school should implement its own discipline plan and positive behavior approach, with multiple tiers of intervention services. Data should be maintained and published in order to monitor progress and measure success. In addition, students must receive a high level of academic support by qualified staff whenever disciplinary consequences remove them from the classroom, either for suspension or when a recommendation for expulsion is pending. The School Board should provide appropriate funding and designated space to accomplish this goal. The transition from middle school to high school, student attendance, and adolescent literacy skills are three issues that require attention as they are major contributors to student misbehavior that result in assigning disciplinary consequences.

Minority Students and Students with Disabilities Although students with disabilities comprise only 14% of the FCPS student population, these students commit 40% of the serious disciplinary infractions g (i.e., those referred to the Hearings Office). Black students comprise 11% of all FCPS secondary students and represent 30% of all suspensions. For Latino students, the percentages are 19% of the secondary student population and 30% of suspensions.

Because of this disproportionality in disciplinary consequences, the Committee recommends that the contributing factors be analyzed, and a goal set to substantially reduce the number of suspensions and expulsions of these students. A specific Advisory Committee should be formed in order to find a way to eliminate disproportionality within three years. Since the most frequent reasons for student suspension are discretionary (e.g., disrespect, defiance, disruption of class), the School Board should ensure that each school implements its positive behavior approach with fidelity to the research-based model (e.g., PBIS or Responsive Classroom).

Page | 95

All current FCPS personnel and School Board members should be required to receive diversity training to improve communications with, and understandings of, the increasingly diverse FCPS student, parent and family populations. Such training would raise cultural competence across race, ethnicity and gender, as well as among students with disabilities and should reduce disproportionality.

Additionally, the SR&R should clearly outline the legal requirements and need for different disciplinary practices for students with disabilities. A separate guide for parents and administrators is recommended that includes examples of some of the behaviors exhibited by students that are characteristic of their specific disability. School administrators should consult with the student's case manager and/or other key members of the IEP team, and review the student's IEP (including any Behavior Intervention Plan) to ensure that any special circumstances regarding the student are considered. Accommodations must be made for students with disabilities if written statements are required as part of the disciplinary process, and FCPS should ensure that Manifestation Review Teams are independent and unbiased when determining if the misbehavior is related to the student’s disability. The Committee also recommends that a wide range of resources for parents be included in the Parent Companion Guide, including what actions parents should take whenever their child exhibits challenging behaviors

Parent Involvement & Parent Rights The Committee believes that parents should be more involved whenever school administrators are considering serious disciplinary actions for violating the Code of Conduct. School administrators should notify parents or guardians whenever a student is suspected of committing a serious violation that could result in suspension from school, a recommendation for expulsion, or involvement of law enforcement or the legal system. The only exception to parent notification is when the safety and security of the students or school property is at risk. Rather than mandatory consequences for any given offense, the School Board should provide administrators with a range of consequences for each disciplinary infraction. Consequences should be consistent throughout FCPS and take into account special circumstances based on the developing brain of children K-12. The Committee believes that the consequences for first time use or possession of controlled, illegal or imitation substances are too severe and that the emphasis should instead be directed at interventions that will seek to remedy the behavior; recommending that a “second chance” program be offered for students K-12, with transportation provided to the Alcohol and Other Drug seminars that take the place of suspension. Any student who has violated the prohibited substance use policy for the first time and whose conduct would constitute a misdemeanor under Virginia law should be eligible for placement in the “Second Chance” program in lieu of suspension.

To assist parents in negotiating the disciplinary process, the Committee recommends that Fairfax County School Board appoint a discipline liaison, considered to be an independent or neutral party. The liaison will serve as a point of contact for parents/guardians and students who have questions or concerns about the disciplinary process, as well as to provide information, make available appropriate resources and communicate to stakeholder groups in the spirit of continuous improvement.

To ensure that parents are appropriately informed when their student has been disciplined, the Committee recommends that parents receive a discipline report each quarter, listing any information documented in the FCPS Student Information System.

The Discipline Process The Committee is of the opinion that the threat of expulsion from school is overused, particularly when the overwhelming majority of students currently recommended for expulsion are provided educational services in FCPS. FCPS should allow principals to recommend a student’s reassignment to an appropriate alternative educational setting rather than recommend expulsion for many offenses currently mandated by SR&R to require a recommendation for expulsion.

Page | 96

Students are currently out of a school setting for much too long pending discipline decisions. While some measures have been put in place to reduce the time students are out of school, more needs to be done. The Fairfax County School Board should issue discipline decisions in a more timely fashion, generally no later than 10 working days after the matter is forwarded to the School Board. Principals should have discretion to allow a student to remain in school pending appeal of a disciplinary decision, and parents should be able to choose to enroll their student in the placement determined by the Hearings Office pending appeal to the School Board. FCPS should require and fund school staff to complete the local screening/special education eligibility process in a more timely fashion. It is the recommendation of the committee that this process should be completed as quickly as possible and, unless in the event of exigent circumstances, no later than 20 working days from the date of the referral

FCPS must continue to provide educational services to all students who are suspended from school, including daily classroom work, and at least one staff person should be assigned to be the liaison between teachers and each student on suspension. Although a number of alternative programs currently exist, FCPS should establish “alternative educational settings” (akin to alternative learning centers or alternative high schools) in all middle, high and secondary schools. Since many students assigned to alternative programs are out of school due to a lack of transportation, FCPS should provide transportation for all students assigned to nontraditional schools as a result of discipline decisions issued by the Hearings Office or School Board. Additionally FCPS should reduce the number of disciplinary infractions that require a principal to suspend a student or recommend for expulsion.

Although a large number of recommendations are contained in this report, the work of improving student disciplinary processes in FCPS will require an ongoing commitment from the School Board, staff and community. A standing discipline committee comprised of all stakeholders should be appointed to collect data and monitor progress. By working together, we can transform inappropriate student behavior into a learning experience that will benefit the student and family, as well as the school community.

Page | 97

APPENDIX A SR&R Discipline Procedures for Students with Disabilities

Every student is to be treated fairly. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Virginia's implementing regulations recognize that students with disabilities have a right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and that their unique educational needs require special accommodation in the administration of school discipline. Our community acknowledges that fairness does not mean the same as equal and that we have an obligation to respond to the behaviors of students with disabilities based on their unique needs and circumstances. The purpose of education is to develop productive members of society. According to IDEA, schools must focus equally on the academic, functional and behavioral success of students. In addition, the School Board has established expectations for behavior in Student Achievement Goal 2 and 3. Accordingly, prevention and intervention need to be the primary approaches to dealing with the challenging behaviors of students with disabilities. In addition, schools need an accurate understanding of the underlying reasons for misbehavior in order to determine to the appropriate disciplinary pathway to ensure student success. Students need equally safe and supportive learning environments. IDEA, state regulations and research-based practices offer school personnel positive behavior approaches to respond to students with disabilities whose challenging behaviors interfere with their learning or the learning of other students. Clear procedures exist for schools to deal with exigent circumstances, but the legal requirements in dealing with the discipline of students with disabilities reflect a community value that healthy school communities require measured and restorative responses to misbehavior. 1. Prevention of Disciplinary Incidents When a student’s behavior impedes his/her learning or that of others, the IEP team shall use positive behavioral interventions, strategies and supports, taking one or both of the following actions: A. Develop IEP goals and services specific to the child's behavioral needs; B. Conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) and develop a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) to address the child's behavioral needs. Examples of interfering behaviors, include but are not limited to, non-disruptive behavior that shows avoidance of learning, disruptive behavior, absenteeism, argumentativeness, defiance, aggression, bullying or reactions to bullying, repeated removal from class, and being suspended more than once in a school year. [8VAC20-81-160,A,2] 2. Short-Term Suspensions (Less than 10 School Days) Students with disabilities may be disciplined in the same manner as non-disabled peers for up to 10 consecutive or cumulative school days in the same school year, as long as the suspension does not constitute a change of placement as agreed upon in the IEP or a pattern of suspension. [8VAC20-81-160,D] 3. Long-Term Suspension (More than 10 School Days) If the suspension is for more than 10 consecutive or cumulative school days, or constitutes a change of IEP placement (including an involuntary removal to a 45-day Interim Alternative Educational Setting for special circumstances) the school shall conduct a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) and provide services to enable the student to participate in the general education curriculum and progress toward meeting the goals of the IEP. In addition, the school must conduct a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) if the school is contemplating a suspension which changes the IEP placement or a series of suspensions which establish a pattern. The MDR TEAM meeting shall

Page | 98

convene immediately but no later than 10 school days from the occurrence of the behavioral incident leading to the suspension. On the same date on which a school decides to suspend a student with a disability because of a violation of the code of conduct, the school shall notify the parents and provide them a copy of the procedural safeguards. [8VAC20-81-160,C] 4. Consultation with the Student's IEP Team Prior to making a decision to suspend or recommend for expulsion a student with a disability, the principal of the school (or the principal’s designee) shall consult with the student's case manager and/or other key members of the IEP team, review the student's IEP – including any Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) – and take into consideration any special circumstances regarding the student. [8VAC20-81-160,A,3,a]

Page | 99

5. Written statements by Students with Disabilities If any written statement is requested of a student with a disability, school staff will consult the IEP or 504 plan and ensure all accommodations are provided to the student. 6. Manifestation Determination Reviews In conducting a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR), the school shall follow the procedures below: A. Relevant members of the student's IEP team — as determined by the parent and school — shall comprise the Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) TEAM. [8VAC20-81-160,D,2] B. The MDR TEAM shall determine the misconduct was a manifestation of the student’s disability (causality) if either of the following two conditions is met: 1. The conduct was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability, or 2. The conduct was a direct result of the failure to fully implement the IEP, including the Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) or any behavioral goals [8VAC20-81-160,D,4] C. In making a determination of causality, the MDR TEAM shall consider all relevant information in the student’s file and other factors including: 1. The child's IEP, placement, school evaluations, observations and information supplied by the parents, including private medical or mental health providers with proper releases; 2. The child's discipline history (total number of suspensions, the proximity of multiple suspensions and the length of each suspension) and all assessments; 3. The type of misconduct in relation to the child's discipline history (isolated instance vs. repeated; whether the child's behavior is substantially similar to behavior in previous and current incident); 4. The factors contributing to the misconduct such as unique circumstances, information from observers of the incident, environmental factors, educational program, home factors and the child's mental, physical and developmental challenges; 5. The effectiveness of the goals, services and supports in the IEP to prevent similar misbehavior and the strategies to reinforce desirable behavior;

Page | 100

6. The effectiveness of the child's Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) in relationship to the misconduct and whether the BIP is based on research-based practices; 7. In the absence of a BIP, whether more information is needed through the administration of a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) or other evaluations. 8. Other factors as determined by the MDR team. [8VAC20-81-160,D,3] D. If the MDR TEAM determines the misconduct is related to the student’s disability, the student may not be expelled or suspended for more than 10 school days except in special circumstances for which placement in an Interim Alternative Education Setting (IAES) is permitted for a period up to, but not to exceed, 45 school days. In addition, the child's IEP team must conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) as soon as possible. Based on the information in the FBA, the IEP team shall develop or update a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) and review and modify the existing IEP to include goals and services specific to the child's behavioral needs. If the parents disagree with the FBA, they may request an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at public expense. [8VAC20-81-160,D,6] E. If the MDR TEAM determines the misconduct is not a manifestation of the student’s disability, the disciplinary process may proceed, and the student is subject to the same disciplinary proceedings as a non-disabled peer. However, special education services must be provided in the new placement during the period of suspension and/or expulsion so as to enable the child to continue to participate in the general education curriculum and to progress toward meeting his or her IEP goals. [8VAC20-81-160,C] F. The MDR decision and written rationale shall be made available to the appropriate Hearings Officer prior to the proceedings, unless the parent agrees to conduct the MDR and the hearing on the same date. A copy of the MDR's findings and written rationale shall be made part of the student’s file. G. If the parents do not agree to a change in placement or with the outcome of the MDR, they may request an expedited Due Process Hearing thorough the Virginia Department of Education according to the procedures outlined in the VDOE SPECIAL EDUCATION PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS REQUIREMENTS (http://fcps.edu/it/forms/se4.pdf). Parents also have a right to a local administrative review within FCPS. [8VAC20-81-160,E]

Page | 101

7. IEP Teams and Restrictions by the Hearings Office If the IEP team determines that restrictions imposed by the Hearings Office would preclude placing the student in the most appropriate educational setting to serve the child's unique needs, or would otherwise interfere with the ability of the child to meet his or her IEP goals, then the IEP team shall formally request the Hearings Office to modify the restrictions. Parents will be informed in writing of the process to request exceptions to any restriction placed on the student (such as prohibiting the student's presence on regular school grounds). 8. Compliance with the Code of Conduct The IEP of every student with a disability shall indicate whether or not the unique special needs of the student necessitates that he/she be exempt any required acknowledgement of the SR&R. For example, some students with a significant intellectual, developmental or physical disability may be unable to comprehend the requirements of the SR&R. 9. Protections for Students Not Yet Eligible for Special Education A student who has not been determined to be eligible for special education and related services, and who has engaged in behavior that violated any rule or code of conduct, is covered by the protections of IDEA 2004 provided the school had knowledge the student was a student with a disability before the behavior that precipitated the disciplinary action occurred. The school is deemed to have knowledge that a student is a student with a disability — unless the parent did not consent to an evaluation, has refused services, or the child has been evaluated and determined not to be a child with a disability — under the following circumstances: • The parent expressed concern, in writing, to supervisory or administrative personnel or the child’s teacher that the child is in need of services. • The parent has requested an evaluation. • The teacher of the child or other school personnel expressed specific concerns about a pattern of behavior. [8VAC20-81-160,A,3] 10. Protections for Students Covered by Section 504 Plans When a principal initiates a suspension of more than ten days, initiates a suspension that would accumulate to more than ten days in a school year, or recommends the expulsion of a student with a disability who receives accommodations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, he or she shall ensure that a knowledgeable committee convenes as soon as possible but not later than ten days after the decision to suspend or recommend expulsion–except in those situations pertaining to the use or possession of illegal drugs or alcohol where the student currently is engaging in the use of illegal drugs or alcohol; then a committee is not required. The knowledgeable committee shall determine whether or not the misconduct has a causal relationship to the student's disability. If it is determined that the misconduct was caused directly by the disability, the student may not be expelled or suspended for more than ten days. If it is determined that the misconduct was not caused directly by the disability, the student may be disciplined in the same manner as nondisabled peers. The student shall not be entitled to receive continuing educational services during any period of suspension or expulsion. The knowledgeable committee's determination shall be forwarded to the hearing officer, who reviews this information in consideration of further disciplinary action.

Page | 102

APPENDIX B

Guide to the Manifestation Determination Review

Name of Student: Date:

IMPORTANT: This Guide was prepared by the JustChildren Program of the Legal Aid Justice Center. We represent low-income students in a variety of education matters. We do not represent schools. We created this guide to assist parents, advocates, and parents’ attorneys in preparing for manifestation determination review hearings, and to provide local education agencies with a tool to help them conduct MDR hearings consistent with the law and best practices. We have made every effort to develop this Guide based on the statutes, regulations, court opinions, and state education agency opinions implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but because the law may be interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, the recommendations in this Guide may go further than what is required by the law of any given jurisdiction. This Guide also makes recommendations for best practices that may not be required by law. This Guide is not intended to be legal advice, and both parents and schools using this Guide should consult with an attorney before relying on it. If you have questions about this Guide, please write to Katie Ryan, 1000 Preston Ave., Suite A, Charlottesville, VA 22903. (Last Revised 1/30/13)

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA) states: 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (E) Manifestation

Determination.

(i) In General. Except as provided in subparagraph (B), within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, the local educational agency, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP Team (as determined by the parent and the local educational agency) shall review all relevant information in the student’s file, including the child’s IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents to determine –

(I) if the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability; or (II) if the conduct in question was the direct result of the local educational agency’s failure to implement the IEP.

(ii) Manifestation. If the local educational agency, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP Team

determine that either subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i) is applicable for the child, the conduct shall be determined to be a manifestation of the child’s disability.

Page | 103

Step One: The MDR Team

The MDR team should include a representative of the Local Education Agency (LEA), the student’s parent,

and relevant members of the IEP team.1 The student’s parent may also invite any additional people with

knowledge or expertise who should be present.2

Parent LEA Representative

Regular Ed. Teacher Special Ed. Teacher

Instruction/Curriculum Expert Individual Who Can Interpret

Implications of Evaluation Results

Student (if appropriate) Other

Other Other

Step Two: Review Relevant Information

Place a check mark next to any document that was reviewed. Documents noted with an * and any other

relevant documents in the child’s file must be reviewed by law.3 Note that the appropriateness of reviewing

additional materials is determined on a case-by-case basis, but any and all relevant information should be taken

into account.4

Child’s IEP* DSM-IV

Teacher Observations Student’s Disciplinary Record

Relevant Information Provided by Psychological & Educational

Evaluations the Parent*

Behavior Improvement Plan Functional Behavior Assessments

Report Card/Student Evaluations

1 20 U.S.C. §1415 (2006); see also 34 C.F.R. 300.530. 2 Fitzgerald v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 556 F.Supp.2d 543, 552–53(E.D.Va. 2008). 3 20 U.S.C. §1415 (2006). 4 See Fitzgerald, 556 F. Supp. At 559..

Page | 104

Additional information to consider can include, but is not limited to: observations by related services personnel; information related to the appropriateness of the child’s placement; supplementary aids and

services;5

and expert opinion.6

Describe any additional relevant information that was considered:

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

The MDR team should consider, in addition to student’s primary disability, other conditions noted in the

student’s file, including but not limited to ADHD7

and ODD.8

List any additional conditions noted in the student’s file and how these conditions impact the student’s behavior:

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Finally, note that while LEA staff members may discuss a student’s case before the MDR takes place, they may not draw any predetermined conclusions that the child’s conduct was or was not a

manifestation of the child’s disability.9

Briefly describe any conversations concerning the student’s case that took place outside the MDR and who participated in those conversations. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Step Three: Was the Conduct Caused by or Directly and Substantially Related to the Child’s

Disability?

What behaviors are consistent with the child’s disability? Please refer to behaviors described in the IEP, evaluations, observations, or other relevant documents. If the IEP or evaluations do not include this information, the team may wish to consult the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Was the child’s conduct consistent with these behaviors?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

5 71 Fed. Reg. 46719 (2006). 6 See, e.g., San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 52 IDELR 301, 14-17 (Ca. SEA 2009) (relying on the testimony of the parent’s expert); see also Swansea Pub. Sch., 47 IDELR 278, 5-6 (Mass. SEA 2007). 7 See id. at 6 (District erred when it considered only student’s primary handicapping condition of SLD and should have considered student’s ADHD as well.). 8 See Fulton County Sch. Dist., 49 IDELR 30, 5 (Ga. SEA 2007) (District erred when it refused to consider student’s ODD because child’s primary disability was Other Health Impairment rather than Emotional/Behavioral Disorder.). Compare Hansen v. Republic R- 111 Sch. Dist., 632 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that a student with both conduct and bipolar disorders, as well as persistently poor behavior, was eligible for special education services) and Springer v. Fairfax Cty. Sch. Bd., 134 F.3d 659 (4th Cir. 1998) (distinguishing between a student who was socially maladjusted and student suffering from an emotional disability). 9

See Fitzgerald, 556 F.Supp.2d at 560; see also In re Student with a Disability, 52 IDELR 239, 6 (W.Va. SEA 2009).

Page | 105

Does the child have other conditions identified in the IEP and evaluations, such as ODD, ADD, or

ADHD? If so, how do these conditions typically manifest in this child? If this information is not in the

IEP, the Team may wish to consult the DSM-IV. Was the conduct in question directly and substantially

related to behaviors associated with any such condition?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In what context did the conduct in question occur?10

Was the student’s behavior affected by events

occurring beforehand in school or at home, particularly any interactions with peers? Did this context

have any relationship to the child’s disability?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Given all information considered above, was the student’s conduct caused by the disability? Explain.

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Did the student’s conduct have a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability? Explain.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

If the student’s conduct was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the disability, the

conduct is a manifestation of the student’s disability.

Step Four: Was the Conduct the Direct Result of the LEA’s Failure to Implement the IEP?

Which, if any, aspects of the child’s IEP have not been properly implemented?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10 See Swansea, supra note 6, at 6; see also H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-779, 224 (2004) (“The Conferees intend to assure that

the manifestation determination is done carefully and thoroughly with consideration of any rare or extraordinary

circumstances presented.)

Page | 106

Which, if any, aspects of the child’s Behavior Intervention Plan have not been properly implemented?

Were the behavior intervention strategies appropriate and consistent with the IEP? Explain.11

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Was the conduct in question a direct result of the failure to implement the IEP or Behavior

Intervention Plan? Explain.

If the student’s conduct was the direct result of the LEA’s failure to implement the IEP, the conduct

is a manifestation of the student’s disability.

11 71 Fed. Reg. 46719 (2006) (behavior intervention strategies identified as relevant information to be reviewed).

Page | 107

APPENDIX C

Work Group Membership

Work Group 1

SR&R Document

Work Group 2

Intervention and

Range of

Responses of

Students

Work Group 3

Students with

Disabilities

Work Group 4

Parent

Involvement and

Parent Rights

Work Group 5

The Discipline

Process

Marlene Guroff Matt Bell Margaret Fisher Rita Giles Jill Beres

Debbie Kilpatrick David Edelman Sheree Brown-

Kaplan

Karen Cogan Mark Bibbee

Brooke

Samuelson

Jim Rixse Cynthia

Kirschenbaum

Renee Lucero Bettina Lawton

Steve Greenburg Jamie Yang Craig Mehall Ralph Cooper Steve Lee

Tina Wallace Quyen Duong Sydney Sawyer JD Anderson

Liz Dunn Quy Vo Fabiana

Ciammaichella

Nancy

Hammerer

Kristina

Wilkerson

Robert Kane

Terrence

Yarborough

Theresa Poquis

Caroline

Hemenway

Bob Bermingham

Suraj Telhan Judy Howard

Abe Jeffers Penny Rood

Avis Catchings

Page | 108

APPENDIX D Committee Voting Record

1-Yes 2-No 3-No Vote

Recommendation 1-1: Language and Tone Participant Name Rec. 1-1

Anderson, JD 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1

Brown-Kaplan, Sheree 1

Catchings, Avis 1

Ciammaichella, Fabiana 1

Cogan, Karen 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1

Hemenway, Caroline 1

Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1

Kilpatrick, Debbie 1

Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Wallace, Tina 1

Wilkerson, Kristina 1

Yang, Jamie 1

Yarborough, Terrence 1

Absentee Vote: Bell, Matt Cooper, Ralph 1 Greenburg, Steve Kirschenbaum, Cynthia Vo, Quy 1

Page | 109

Recommendation 1-2: Accessibility of SR&R Document

Participant Name Rec. 1-2

Anderson, JD 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis 1

Ciammaichella, Fabiana

1

Cogan, Karen 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1


Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve -

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny -

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1



Page | 110

Recommendation 1-3: Readability and Language Participant Name Rec. 1-3

Anderson, JD 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis 1


1

Cogan, Karen 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1


Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve -

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1



Page | 111

Recommendation 1-4: Balance and Tone of SR&R Document for all Target Audiences


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1

Kilpatrick, Debbie -

Kirschenbaum, Cynthia 1

Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -


Absent: Bermingham, Bob Catchings, Avis Kilpatrick, Debbie Samuelson, Brook Vo, Quy Yang, Jamie

Page | 112

Recommendation 1-5: On-going Consultation and Collaboration:


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 2

Edelman, David -

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 2

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 113

Recommendation 1-6: Administrators and Teachers Review Revised Handbook


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 2

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 114

Recommendation 2-1: School Administrator Discretion


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 2

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -


Absent:

Bermingham, Bob Catchings, Avis Kilpatrick, Debbie Samuelson, Brook Vo, Quy Yang, Jamie

Page | 115

Recommendation 2-2: Range of Responses:


Anderson, JD 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis 1


1

Cogan, Karen 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1


Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve -

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 2

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1


Absent: Bell, Matt Cooper, Ralph Greenburg, Steve Kirschenbaum, Cynthia Vo, Quy

Page | 116

Recommendation 2-3: School Discipline Plan Participant Name Rec 2-3

Anderson, JD 2

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 2


Catchings, Avis 1


Cogan, Karen 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy -

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 1


Lawton, Bettina 2

Lee, Steve 2

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 2

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1


Absentee Vote: Bell, Matt Cooper, Ralph 1 Greenberg, Steve Kirschenbaum, Cynthia Vo, Quy 1

Page | 117

Recommendation 2-5: Positive Behavior Support (PBA/PBIS)


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph -

Dunn, Liz 2

Duong, Quyen 3

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 2

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney -

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj -

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -


Absentee Vote: Catchings, Avis Cooper, Ralph Samuelson, Brooke Sawyer, Sydney Telhan, Suraj Vo, Quy Yang, Jamie

Page | 118

Recommendation 2-6: In-School Academic Support


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph -

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 2

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney -

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj -

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 119

Recommendation 2-7: Suspension with Support


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph -

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney -

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj -

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 120

Recommendation 2-8: School Transfer Support Participant Name Rec. 2-8

Anderson, JD 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis 1


1

Cogan, Karen 1

Dunn, Liz -

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1


Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1



Page | 121

Recommendation 2-9: Attendance Task Force


Anderson, JD 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis 1


Cogan, Karen 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita -

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1


Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1


Absentee Vote: Bell, Matt Cooper, Ralph 1 Greenburg, Steve Kirschenbaum, Cynthia Vo,Quy 1

Page | 122

Recommendation 2-10: Literacy Task Force


Anderson, JD 3

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 3

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 3

Dunn, Liz 2

Duong, Quyen 3

Edelman, David 3

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 2

Guroff, Marlene 2

Hammerer, Nancy -


Howard, Judy 3

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 3

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney -

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj -

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 3


Yang, Jamie -

Yarborough, Terrence -


Page | 123

Recommendation 3-1: Identify and Include in the SR&R Community Values Regarding the Discipline of Students with Disabilities


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 2


Catchings, Avis 1


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 2

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita -

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene -

Hammerer, Nancy 3

Hemenway, Caroline -

Howard, Judy -

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 2

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy 3

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1


Absentee Vote: Bell, Matt Giles, Rita 1 Guroff, Marlene 1 Hemenway, Caroline 1 Howard, Judy 1 Poquis, Theresa

Page | 124

Recommendation 3-2: Publish Collected Data on Disproportionate Discipline


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis 1


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita -

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene -

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy -

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy 1

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1



Page | 125

Recommendation 3-3: Establish an Advisory Committee to Study Disproportionalities in Discipline


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis 1


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita -

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene -

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy -

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy 3

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 3



Page | 126

Recommendation 3-4: Reduce Suspension/Expulsion of Students with Disabilities


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob 2

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph -

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 3

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy 3

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 2

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney -

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj -

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -


Absentee Vote: Catchings, Avis Cooper, Ralph Samuelson, Brooke Sawyer, Sydney Telhan, Suraj Vo, Quy

Page | 127

Recommendation 3-5: Establish a Separate SR&R Section on Students with Disabilities


Anderson, JD 3

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 2


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph -

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney -

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj -

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 128

Recommendation 3-6: Implement Existing Tools for the Prevention of Disciplinary Incidents


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 2


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph -

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 2

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney -

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj -

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 2


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 129

Recommendation 3-7: Ensure Consultation with the Student’s IEP Team


Anderson, JD 2

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 2


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 2

Guroff, Marlene 2

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy 2

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 2



Lawton, Bettina -

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 2

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 2

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 2


Yang, Jamie -


Absent: Bermingham, Bob Catchings, Avis Kilpatrick, Debbie Samuelson, Brooke Vo, Quy Yang, Jamie Samuelson, Brooke

Page | 130

Recommendation 3-8: Accommodate Written Statements by Students with Disabilities


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina -

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 131

Recommendation 3-9: Define Composition of the Manifestation Determination Review Team


Anderson, JD 2

Bell, Matt 3

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 2


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 2

Duong, Quyen 2

Edelman, David 3

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 2

Guroff, Marlene 2

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy 2

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 2



Lawton, Bettina -

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 2

Rixse, Jim 2

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 2

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 2

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 2


Yang, Jamie -


Absent Bermingham, Bob Catchings, Avis Kilpatrick, Debbie Samuelson, Brook Vo, Quy Yang, Jamie

Page | 132

Recommendation 3-10: Delineate and Document all Factors for Manifestation Determination Reviews


Anderson, JD 2

Bell, Matt 3

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 2


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 2

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 2

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy 2

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 3



Lawton, Bettina -

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 2

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 2

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 2

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 2


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 133

Recommendation 3-11: Communicate Manifestation Determination Review Findings and Rationale


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina -

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 134

Recommendation 3-12: Modifying IEP Placements with the Hearings Office


Anderson, JD 2

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 2


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 2

Edelman, David 3

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy 2

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 3



Lawton, Bettina 2

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 2

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 3

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 2


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 135

Recommendation 3-13: Evaluate a Student’s Ability to Comprehend the SR&R


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 2


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 2

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy 3

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 2

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 3

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 3

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 2


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 136

Recommendation 3-14: Expand Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, Restorative Justice and Peer Mediation


Anderson, JD 2

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 2


Catchings, Avis 1


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 2

Duong, Quyen 2

Edelman, David 3

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita -

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene -

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy -

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 2

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 2

Rood, Penny 2

Samuelson, Brooke 2

Sawyer, Sydney 3

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 2

Vo, Quy 2

Wallace, Tina 2


Yang, Jamie 3



Page | 137

Recommendation 3-15: Provide Additional Parent Resources


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis 1


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita -

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene -

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy -

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 3

Vo, Quy 3

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1



Page | 138

Recommendation 4-2: Second Chance Program Participant Name Rec. 4-2

Anderson, JD 2

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 2


Catchings, Avis 1


Cogan, Karen 1

Dunn, Liz -

Duong, Quyen 2

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy -

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 1


Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 2

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Wallace, Tina 2


Yang, Jamie 1



Page | 139

Recommendation 4-3: Discipline Liaison


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy -


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 2

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney -

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj -

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 3


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 140

Recommendation 4-4: Parent Notification of Student’s Disciplinary Record


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 2

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 141

Recommendation 4-6: Attend Base School During Appeal


Anderson, JD 2

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph -

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney -

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj -

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 142

Recommendation 4-7: Range of Consequences

Participant Name

Rec. 4-7

ANDERSON JD 1

BELL Matt -

BERES Jill 1

BERMINGHAM Bob 1

BIBBEE Mark 1

BROWN-KAPLAN Sheree 1

CATCHINGS Avis 1

CIAMMAICHELLA Fabiana 1

COGAN Karen 1

COOPER Ralph 1

DUNN Liz 1

DUONG Quyen 1

EDELMAN David 1

FISHER Margaret 1

GILES Rita -

GREENBURG Steve 1

GUROFF Marlene -

HAMMERER Nancy 1

HEMENWAY Caroline -

HOWARD Judy -

JEFFERS Abe 1

KANE Robert 1

KILPATRICK Debbie 1

KIRSCHENBAUM Cynthia 1

LAWTON Bettina 1

LEE Steve 1

LUCERO Renee 1

MEHALL Craig 1

POQUIS Theresa -

RIXSE Jim 1

ROOD Penny 1

SAMUELSON Brooke 1

SAWYER Sydney 1

STUBAN Steve 1

TELHAN Suraj 1

VO Quy 1

WALLACE Tina 1

WILKERSON Kristina 1

YANG Jamie 1

YARBOROUGH Terrence 1

Absentee Vote:

Giles, Rita 1

Guroff, Marlene 1


Howard, Judy 1

Page | 143

Recommendation 4-8: Collaborative Discipline


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -


Absent:


Page | 144

Recommendation 4-9: Discipline Committee


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy -


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 145

Recommendation 4-10: Revise Definition of Parent


Anderson, JD 3

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis 1


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita -

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene -

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy -

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 2

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy 1

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1



Page | 146

Recommendation 5-1: Alternative to Recommendation for Expulsion


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis 1


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita -

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene -

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy -

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy 1

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1



Page | 148

Recommendation 5-2: In Lieu of Suspension


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis 1


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita -

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene -

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy -

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy 1

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1



Page | 148

Recommendation 5-3: School Board Timelines


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis 1


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita -

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene -

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy -

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy 1

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1



Page | 149

Recommendation 5-4: Appeal Placements


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph -

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney -

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj -

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 150

Recommendation 5-5: Alternative Settings within Schools or Pyramids


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 3

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 2

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy -


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 151

Recommendations 5-6: Student Transportation to Alternative Settings


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis 1


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita -

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene -

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy -

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa -

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke 1

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy 1

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie 1



Page | 152

Recommendation 5-7: Packet


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy -


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 153

Recommendation 5-8: Hearing Attendance


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy -


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 154

Recommendation 5-9: AOD Seminar Expansion


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy -


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 155

Recommendation 5-10: AOD Transportation


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy -


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 156

Recommendation 5-11: Diversity Training


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy -


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 157

Recommendation 5-13: Expedited Student Entry/Reentry Timelines

Participant Name Rec.5-13

Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph -

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene -

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy -

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney -

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj -

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 158

Recommendation 5-14: Expedited Referral to Local Screening Committee/Special

Education Reevaluation Committee Timelines


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph -

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 1


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney -

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj -

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 159

Recommendation 5-15: Revisions to Teacher Removal of a Student from Class

Notification to Parent Guidelines (as detailed in regulations 2606 v. 2601)


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy -


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 160

Recommendation 5-16: Recommended Revisions to the Mandatory Disciplinary

Sanctions Detailed in the Current SR&R


Anderson, JD 1

Bell, Matt 1

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph 1

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy -


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 1

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 1

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj 1

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -



Page | 161

Recommendation 5-17: Recommended Revisions Related to the Myriad Issues

that fall Under the General Heading of Parent Permission/Notification


Anderson, JD 2

Bell, Matt -

Beres, Jill 2

Bermingham, Bob 1

Bibbee, Mark 2


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 1

Cooper, Ralph -

Dunn, Liz 1

Duong, Quyen 2

Edelman, David 1

Fisher, Margaret 1

Giles, Rita 1

Greenburg, Steve 1

Guroff, Marlene 1

Hammerer, Nancy 2


Howard, Judy 1

Jeffers, Abe 2

Kane, Robert 1



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 1

Mehall, Craig 1

Poquis, Theresa 2

Rixse, Jim 2

Rood, Penny 1

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney -

Stuban, Steve 1

Telhan, Suraj -

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 2


Yang, Jamie -


Absentee Vote:

Catchings, Avis

Cooper, Ralph

Samuelson, Brooke

Sawyer, Sydney

Telhan, Suraj

Vo, Quy

Yang, Jamie

Page | 162

Recommendation 5-18: Establishing Limits on Illegal Drugs Being Brought to

School


Anderson, JD 3

Bell, Matt 2

Beres, Jill 1

Bermingham, Bob -

Bibbee, Mark 1


Catchings, Avis -


Cogan, Karen 2

Cooper, Ralph 2

Dunn, Liz 2

Duong, Quyen 1

Edelman, David 3

Fisher, Margaret 2

Giles, Rita 2

Greenburg, Steve 2

Guroff, Marlene 2

Hammerer, Nancy -


Howard, Judy 2

Jeffers, Abe 1

Kane, Robert 2



Lawton, Bettina 1

Lee, Steve 1

Lucero, Renee 2

Mehall, Craig 2

Poquis, Theresa 1

Rixse, Jim 2

Rood, Penny 2

Samuelson, Brooke -

Sawyer, Sydney 2

Stuban, Steve 2

Telhan, Suraj 3

Vo, Quy -

Wallace, Tina 1


Yang, Jamie -


Absent:


Page | 163

APPENDIX E

Issues Matrices

Issue # Issue WG1-

SR&R

WG2-

Students

WG3-

Students

w/Disabilities

WG4-

Parents

WG5-

Process

1-1 Parental Notification X

1-2 Clarity & Continuity of

Process

X X X

1-3 Checks and Balances X X X

1-4 Continuity of Instruction X X X

1-5 Accessibility of

Document

X X

1-6 Range of Punishments

and Infractions

X

1-7 Collaboration of

(Student) Packet

Information (prior to

hearing)

X

1-8 MDR Equivalent for all

Students

X X X X X

1-9 Safety & Rights of all

Students

X X X X X

1-10 Long-term

Consequences

X

1-11 Impact on Special Ed

Students

X

1-12 Training of Hearings

Officers

X

Page | 164

APPENDIX E Issues Matrices

Issue # Issue WG1- SR&R

WG2- Students

WG3- Students

w/Disabilities

WG4- Parents

WG5- Process

2-1 Negative Tone of SR&R X X

2-2 Apparent Emphasis on Discipline

X X X

2-3 Broaden Inclusiveness (beyond students and parents)

X X X X

2-4 Mirror Parent Handbook Organization, Particularly Listing of Rights and Responsibilities

X X X

2-5 Encourage Understanding by Parents not just a Signature

X X X

Issue# Issue WG1- SR&R

WG2- Students

WG3- Students

w/Disabilities

WG4- Parents

WG5- Process

3-1 Disproportionality of Students with Disabilities

X

3-2 Use Student-Friendly Language and Visuals

X X

3-3 Student Attendance X X

3-4 Examine Difference in Consequences for Alcohol vs. Drug Usage; Review Arlington’s Policy on Marijuana

X X

3-5 Victim’s Rights and Restorative Justice

X X X

Page | 165

APPENDIX E Issues Matrices

Issue# Issue WG1- SR&R

WG2- Students

WG3- Students

w/Disabilities

WG4- Parents

WG5- Process

4-1 Uniform Interpretation and Implementation Across FCPS; Training for Hearings Officers and Principals

X X

4-2 Support During Suspension X X X

4-3 Training for Administrators X X

4-4 Consistency in Process X X X

4-5 Parent Notification Before Questioning of Student –Not “As Soon as Possible”

X X X

4-6 Due Process of Law in Hearings

X X X

Issue # Issue WG1- SR&R

WG2- Students

WG3- Students

w/Disabilities

WG4- Parents

WG5- Process

5-1 Length of SR&R X

5-2 Restrict Language X X

5-3 Perceived Bias Against the Suspected Student

X

5-4 Education X X X X

5-5 Resources and Safety X X X

5-6 Keep Students in School X X X

Page | 166

APPENDIX F

Summary of Community Dialogue Meetings

The Ad Hoc Community Committee on SR&R

Summary of Community Dialogues on Student Discipline

More than 160 people attended five Community Dialogues on Student Discipline February 4-23,

2013.

Each of the community meetings began with the Chair or Vice Chair presenting the School

Board’s charge to the Ad Hoc Committee on student Rights and Responsibilities. An over view

of the process used by the committee was presented along with a sample draft recommendation

from each of the five Working Groups.

Attendees were divided into small groups so they could participate in a facilitated discussion

about the discipline process and comment on the sample recommendations. In addition, the

Committee came up with 11 questions to ask community members so community input could be

used to guide the committee’s work. Community member’s ideas, perspectives, and concerns

were recorded by a facilitator. Several committee members were present to listen to each small

group and they responded to questions from community members.

The following themes have been identified and should be considered by the Committee as they move forward with their final recommendations: Themes:

· Make SR&R easy to access and understandable by all, and make it comprehensive

· Balance FCPS representative's(s') need to assess a situation and ensure safety first, and notify parents promptly

· Discretion of FCPS representative(s) needs to be balanced with the need to build trust in the community (e.g. disproportionality)

· The process needs to be:

o fair and consider the context of the incident (.e.g. repeat or first

incident and severity)

o consist and flexibility

The following ideas were mentioned during the discussions, some more often than others. The

number in parentheses is the number of times a comment or idea was noted during the

discussions. Many ideas or comments were mentioned once, but are not reflected in the

summary.

Page | 167


Working Group 1 Recommendation: Improve the language and tone of the document by renaming it, including a preamble which includes the purpose and philosophy behind prevention and disciplinary practices with positive, balanced language.

Question #1 What would make this a more effective and user friendly resource for you?

Shorter in length, easier to understand, less legal language (10)*

Easy online accessibility, searchable by key words, contain QR codes by section (8)

Adapted for different age levels – ES, MS, HS (6)

Prohibited behaviors must be clear and comprehensible to students(3)

Question #2 What would you add or delete from the current SR&R document?

Include a chart of things that are mandatory vs. discretionary (3)

Add visuals such as cartoons, videos (5)

Add a signature / quick sheet that includes basic behavior expectations (3)

Add parental notification (2)

*Number of times comment was recorded


Working Group 2 Recommendation: Develop and include in the SR&R a tiered discipline structure.

Question #1 How should first time offense of possession of alcohol/marijuana be addressed?

No suspension for first time offense (6)

Parents should be called in to discuss student’s behavior (5)

Must be different rule for possession versus distribution (3)

Need uniform guidance/matrix, perception is discrepancy within system (3)

Question #2 How much discretion should principals have in determining discipline actions?

Principals should have some discretion, but also need counter/balance for consistency (8)

Principals should have some flexibility in the way the discipline process is implemented (8)

Parents need to be more involved in the discipline process (6)

Principals need better training to set discipline priorities (5)

Define discretion (2)

Page | 168


Working Group 3 Recommendation: Include in the SR&R or create a separate section that contains the Federal and State requirements regarding the discipline of students with disabilities.

Question #1 What information in regard to students with disabilities would you like to see in the SR&R?

SR&R should include information for students with disabilities based on severity of disability (3)

Include IEP information in a separate book (2)

Question #2 What suggestions would you have on preventing students from getting into the discipline process?

Schools need more counselors, psychologists and social workers (4)

School staff and security personnel should be educated about students with special needs (3)

Students must have positive role models, peer mentors (2)

Students must have positive reinforcement (2)

Elementary teachers need more instruction on discipline techniques and outcomes (2)


Working Group 4 Recommendation: Recommend a second chance program for all students who have violated the prohibited substance use policy for the first time, and whose conduct would constitute a misdemeanor under Virginia law in lieu of suspension.

Question #1 What are your thoughts on a 2

nd chance program for drugs and alcohol?

Attending an approved program would waive the suspension for first time offenders (7)

Need to set up parameters for illegal versus legal substances; would not support second chance for heroin or cocaine (4)

Support for providing student transportation to “in lieu” program (3)

Second chanced program is fair for possession but not for distribution (3)

Second chance and zero policies need to be in sync (2)

Give students access to school activities, guidance, parent liaison (2)

Question #2 Would a liaison in the school be beneficial to the discipline process?

Purpose of the liaison would need to be clarified; how would they be different from a school counselor (4)

Peer mediators could be used as liaisons (3)

AP’s can be trained for this role (2)

Question #3 Do you have any recommendations on how we can decrease the number of minority students involved in discipline infractions?

Establish mentor programs and business partnerships (8)

Encourage minority parents to attend school meetings and get involved in volunteering, extracurricular activities (5)

Utilize Fairfax County and resources for minority students and their families (3)

Help minority families understand the culture and background of FCPS (3)

Early intervention, focus on reading skills and behavior patterns in elementary school, after school tutoring (3)

Need for diversity/cultural competence training for staff (3)

Need to track minority discipline infractions and look at outcomes; concern about disparity (3)

Page | 169


Working Group 5 Recommendation: Change the wording concerning parent notification in current SR&R to include more direction on how and when parents are notified earlier in the process.

Question #1 What would you like to see regarding parental notification during the disciplinary process?

School representatives should make an assessment of the situation and then notify parents (14)

If there is no imminent danger to self or others, notify a parent or guardian before requiring a written or oral statement from the student (14)

Must be a reasonable balance between individual needs, parent needs, and general safety at the school (8)

Keep a log to document all attempts to notify parents (3)

Parents need to be notified in timely manner, need to go above and beyond to reach parents (2)

Parental involvement on ongoing basis in disciplinary process (4)

Teachers do not always follow rules/procedures, need consistency (2)

Question #2 What do you consider the positives and negatives of the current disciplinary process? Positives

School take the time to communicate rules and consequences (3)

SR&R video (2)

Considers individual circumstances (3)

SR&R video (2)

Hearing Office process is moving faster and assigning parent advocates (2) Negatives

Need more restorative justice rather than suspension (5)

Steps to appeal, process are unclear (7)

Zero tolerance creates distrust (2)

Absence of ombudsman (3)

Not oriented toward rights (2)

Disproportionate number of minorities in the discipline process (4)

Page | 170

APPENDIX G

COMMUNITY E-MAILS

SR&R Community Emails

Parents, employees, and community members were invited to send questions or comments

about the SR&R to a designated FCPS email address. A total of 26 emails were received.

Parental notification (8) and zero tolerance policies (5) were subjects most often cited in the

comments. A summary of comments:

Parental Notification

Require parental notification

Need greater awareness of student rights

Must contact parents immediately except in cases where person or property are in

danger

Zero Tolerance

Opposed to zero tolerance policies

Each school should administer discipline as it sees fit; principals/teachers should have

discretion

Discipline should be resolved based on circumstances of specific case

Prevention, intervention, rehabilitation, and restoration should be used instead of

punitive measures

Suspension makes problems worse. Use suspension/expulsion only when the safety of

students and faculty at risk

Suspend students but allow them to redeem themselves; if they fail to meet expectation

twice, then they are out

General SR&R Comments

Enforce dress code and be consistent in all schools

Current policy too lenient for bringing gun to school; should be grounds for immediate

expulsion

Current SR&R is an improvement over previous version

Need FCPS endorsed approach to classroom management of minor misconduct

Address the cause of misconduct

Student behavior should be standard and be fair and nondiscriminatory

Have an independent board to review appeals

Second chance for first time marijuana

Later start times

Adopt an anti-bullying program

State clear consequences for SR&R violations

School should contact police when illegal action happens at school and stay out of it

Create an alternative school to handle serious SR&R violators

School atmosphere is too stifling and heavy-handed; list of “cannot do” at school out of

hand

Page | 171

APPENDIX H COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

NOT FORWARDED TO THE SCHOOL BOARD

Recommendation 2.4: Language and Philosophy TOPIC FORWARDED TO WORKING GROUP 1

Page | 172

Recommendation 3.9: Define Composition of the Manifestation Determination Review Team

FAILED: See complete text below

That the School Board require the following provision in the SR&R section on students with disabilities:

In conducting a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR), neither the principal nor the authority figure involved in a disciplinary incident with the student may serve as a members of the MDR team or participate in the decision but may provide information regarding the incident. The parent will be informed prior to the meeting of all school attendees.

COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 12 No –19 No Vote – 2 Background – Rationale for Recommendation

In addition to reflecting the requirements of the Virginia special education regulations (8VAC20-81-160,D,2) regarding the most relevant members of the IEP team, this provision mirrors the current best practice of the New Orleans Recovery School District: "Neither the principal nor the authority figure involved in an incident with the student may serve as a member of the Manifestation Determination Committee. However, they may participate at the meeting for informational purposes." See http://www.stopschoolstojails.org/sites/default/files/New%20Orleans%20Student%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf - Page 25.

An MDR is not a hearing to review the facts of whether a violation of the code of conduct has occurred; it is a process to determine if the child’s behavior “was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability.” The MDR is also charged with determining whether the behavior “was a direct result of the failure to fully implement the IEP, including the Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) or any behavioral goals.” As part of this process, an MDR reviews all relevant information regarding the child, the child’s history and the relationship between the child’s disability and the behavior in question. Federal law requires this extensive review to ensure that consequences for problem behaviors do not discriminate against a child based on his/her disability.

Relevant members of the student’s IEP team conduct the MDR because they are the school professionals who are most familiar with the child, the child’s disability and its impact on behavior. These professionals typically include the school psychologist, school social worker, special education teacher, case manager, special education department chair, school counselor, behavior intervention teacher and school therapists. Disqualifying the principal and school personnel directly involved in the disciplinary incident (e.g., assistant principal and other administrative staff) helps to protect the impartiality of the MDR process and keeps the focus on the child and his/her disability. In addition, this provision removes any appearance of a conflict of interest in the determining the outcome of an MDR. Pros

Ensures the MDR decision is based on factors related only to the student's disability and services as required by federal law and the state regulations. Protects staff from any appearance of a conflict of interest.

Cons



Page | 173

If an administrator is desired to serve on the MDR, another staff member would need to serve as the principal designee.

Minority Opinion

In the 2011-2012 school year, 217 Manifestation Determination Reviews (MDRs) were held for students with disabilities who were recommended for reassignment or expulsion by a principal. An MDR is a process to determine whether or not a student's behavior was a manifestation of his/her disability. Based on the discipline rate for non-disabled students, we should have expected 162 MDRs (75%) to be found causal and 55 MDRs (25%) to be non-causal. Instead, only 39 (18%) of these MDRs were found causal — more than a four-fold difference. See Question #50 of the committee’s Working Group Document Q&A: http://fcps.edu/dss/ips/srr/committee/resources/documents/WorkingDocument-Q-As.pdf. As reported by parents, one of the primary reasons for so few MDRs being found causal was the participation in MDR decisions of principals who did not know the child's unique needs or have any expertise in the child's disability. Some parents felt that the principal had a vested interest in a finding of non-causality and that there was undue influence on the staff to agree with the principal. Based on its review of the issues, Work Group 3 — and members of the committee who voted to approve recommendation 3.9 — supported limiting the participation of principals in MDR decisions for the following reasons:

1. Preserves the impartiality of the MDR process: An MDR is not a hearing to review the facts

of whether a code of conduct violation has occurred. It is a process to determine if the child’s behavior “was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability.” The MDR is also charged with determining whether the behavior “was a direct result of the failure to fully implement the IEP, including the Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) or any behavioral goals.” Given the principal’s stated request for the child's suspension and expulsion, his/her participation in MDR deliberations compromises the purpose of these discussions regarding the relationship of the child's behavior to his or her disability.

2. Keeps the focus on the child and the impact of her/her disability: Principals are primarily

concerned with safety and security of the school environment; they are not disability or special education experts. As required by IDEA, "relevant members" of the student’s IEP team conduct the MDR because they are the school professionals most familiar with the child, the child’s disability and its impact on his/her behavior. These MDR team members are required to review all relevant information regarding these factors. Disqualifying the principal and school personnel directly involved in the disciplinary incident helps keep the focus on the child and his/her disability rather than the recommendation to long-term suspend and expel the student. 3. Prevents the appearance of a conflict of interest: The principal — as the authority figure making the recommendation to the School Board to expel a student — has taken a position on the child's placement. Evidenced by the low numbers of causal MDRs, factors other than the nature and impact of the child's disability have a significant impact on MDR findings. Parents in the community report that the employer/employee relationship between the principal and his staff often has a chilling effect on MDR deliberations. Taking the principal out of direct involvement in the decision prevents any appearance of undue influence by the principal on the outcome of the MDR 4. Reflects the best practice of other school divisions: This provision mirrors the current best practice of the New Orleans Recovery School District, whose code of conduct is recommended by the Advancement Project: "Neither the principal nor the authority figure involved in an

Page | 174

incident with the student may serve as a member of the Manifestation Determination Committee. However, they may participate at the meeting for informational purposes." See http://www.stopschoolstojails.org/sites/default/files/New%20Orleans%20Student%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf - Page 25.

Page | 175

Recommendation 3.14: Expand Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports,

Restorative Justice and Peer Mediation


That the School Board require implementation, with fidelity in every school within FCPS, school-wide Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) as outlined by the USDOE Office of Special Education Programs, with special focus on Tier 2, and require the integration of Peer Mediation and Restorative Justice practices into the discipline process.


It is clear from years of research and experience that when PBIS is implemented with fidelity it can produce significant positive outcomes in reducing school-wide suspensions and improving the organizational health of a school. Evidence-based practices give a return on investment since they reduce disciplinary infractions and help keep students on track for graduation. For students with disabilities, PBIS has been proven to better address their special learning and behavioral needs. A recent study posted by the federal Office of Special Education Programs has found that if schools are able to reduce discipline referral rates for major offenses for the school system as a whole through effective PBIS programs, the number of students in special education who receive discipline referrals will be reduced. See, If discipline referral rates are reduced. An effective PBIS evaluation example is provided by another local school jurisdiction (Anne Arundel County, MD). See PBIS Summative Report 2008-2009. Tier 2 interventions are an especially important aspect of PBIS. A focus on implementation Tier 2 interventions will provide opportunities for learning appropriate, pro-social behaviors for students with disabilities who misbehave and take the focus off of punitive measures that may not effectively deter misbehavior. See the following PBIS resources:

Tier 1 PBIS OSEP PBIS Implementation Feature OSEP PBIS Primary Prevention Tier 2 PBIS OSEP PBIS Secondary Level Prevention The High School Behavior Education Program (HS-BEP): A Secondary Level Intervention Tier 3 PBIS Tertiary Level Prevention PBIS evaluation blueprint and tools: Evaluation Blueprint for School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Evaluation tools Restorative Justice practices: Dignity in School: Fact Sheet: Creating Positive Discipline in Schools Alameda County Health Care Services Restorative Justice Paper MN PBIS Institute PBIS & Restorative Measures

Pros

Fully implementing PBIS in every school will reduce discipline referral rates for students with disabilities and address disproportionality across all subgroups. PBIS allows for flexibility by schools to continually innovate within a clear structure. In addition, Tier 2 interventions will

Page | 176

help provide more effective supports for students with challenging behaviors and prevent out of school suspensions.

Cons

Full implementation of PBIS, especially Tier 2 interventions, in all schools will require direction from the School Board as well as additional resources. Implementation of Tier 1 in all FCPS schools is estimated by staff to amount to $116,300 and implementation of Tier 2 is estimated at $434,000 for a total cost of $550,300. See the detailed staff funding needs outlined in APPENDIX C

. Minority Opinion

Minority Opinion In Support Of Recommendation 3.14

It is clear from years of research and experience that when PBIS is implemented with fidelity, it can produce significant positive outcomes in reducing school-wide suspensions, improving the organizational health of a school, keeping students on track for graduation, and addressing the disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities and minority students. Currently, 52% of schools in FCPS have become trained in the PBIS framework, which allows local schools the flexibility to continually innovate within a clear structure. This is a 3-tiered approach. Tier 1 covers about 80% of the school rules: Tier 2 addresses students who need more structure; and Tier 3 is for those who need more individualized behavior plans. In particular, the "Tier 2" interventions available through PBIS offer effective supports — such as social skills groups, "check in/check out" for meeting timelines/requirements; goals to reach during school day; behavior charts — for students with challenging behaviors and who are at high risk of suspension and/or expulsion.

For students with disabilities, PBIS has been proven to be an effective approach in addressing their special learning and behavioral needs. A recent study posted by the federal Office of Special Education Programs found that if schools are able to reduce discipline referral rates for major offenses for the school system as a whole through effective PBIS programs, the number of students in special education who receive discipline referrals will also be reduced. See, If discipline referral rates for the school as a whole are reduced, will rates for students with disabilities also be reduced?: http://www.pbis.org/common/pbisresources/publications/Evalu_Brief_revised_IEP_ODR_Nov25.pdf. An effective PBIS evaluation example is provided by another local school jurisdiction (Anne Arundel County, MD). See PBIS Summative Report 2008-2009: http://www.pbis.org/common/pbisresources/publications/EndofYearReport809AnneArundel.pdf

http://www.pbis.org/common/pbisresources/publications/EndofYearReport809AnneArundel.pdf

Page | 177

Members who voted for 3.14 were also concerned with the lack of evidence, in comparison to PBIS, substantiating the success of the home-grown PBA efforts of the 18% of FCPS schools that use them. FCPS recently developed a self-assessment rubric for all schools that contains certain required components and ensures data is collected annually to determine where each school is in the implementation process. However, there is no fidelity to the PBIS format, no requirement to match its components and no required training as part of this effort. The School Board first acknowledged the benefits of and endorsed PBIS use in FCPS more than a decade ago. The time has now come for full implementation of PBIS as policy in every school to ensure consistency and effectiveness across the school division.

Evidence-Based Practices PBIS Tier 1 OSEP PBIS Implementation Feature: http://www.pbis.org/community/juvenile_justice/implementation_features.aspx OSEP PBIS Primary Prevention: http://www.pbis.org/school/primary_level/default.aspx

PBIS Tier 2 OSEP PBIS Secondary Level Prevention: http://www.pbis.org/school/secondary_level/default.aspx The High School Behavior Education Program (HS-BEP): http://www.pbis.org/pbis_resource_detail_page.aspx?Type=3&PBIS_ResourceID=877 PBIS Tier 3 Tertiary Level Prevention: http://www.pbis.org/school/tertiary_level/default.aspx PBIS evaluation blueprint and tools Evaluation Blueprint for School-Wide Positive Behavior Support: http://www.pbis.org/evaluation/evaluation_blueprint.aspx Evaluation tools: http://www.pbis.org/evaluation/evaluation_tools.aspx Restorative Justice Practices Dignity in School: Fact Sheet — Creating Positive Discipline in Schools: http://www.dignityinschools.org/sites/default/files/Fact_Sheet_RestorativeJustice_PBIS.pdf Alameda County Health Care Services Restorative Justice Paper: http://www.acschoolhealth.org/Docs/Restorative-Justice-Paper.pdf

http://www.pbis.org/community/juvenile_justice/implementation_features.aspx

http://www.pbis.org/school/secondary_level/default.aspx

http://www.acschoolhealth.org/Docs/Restorative-Justice-Paper.pdf

Page | 178

MN PBIS Institute PBIS & Restorative Measures: http://www.pbismn.org/documents/G_RestorativeMeasures.pdf

Page | 179

Recommendation 4-1: Parental Notification

WITHDRAWN: Similar to Recommendation 5.17; see complete text below

The principal or his administrative designee shall notify parents or guardians of any student suspected of committing a serious violation*of School Board policy. Parents must be immediately notified by all means possible when a student is believed to be involved in any discipline infraction that may result in suspension/expulsion. School officials will utilize all contact information provided by the parent or guardian from the emergency contact form. In situations where the safety and security of the students or school is at risk, school administrator can waive this notification. Once that risk has been removed, the parent should be immediately notified. An administrator may not proceed until a parent can be reached if the situation could lead to the student’s suspension or expulsion. Once contacted, a parent may use speaker phone or video chat, FaceTime, Skype or other video applications to participate in the discussion rather than being physically present.

Under no circumstances shall the principal or his administrative designee ask or compel any written statement or signature on a document from any student without the consent of a parent or guardian. Student may be asked to provide a written account as a method to remember the specifics of a situation. This statement is to be sealed in an envelope, until reviewed by the parent/guardian. Background – Rationale for Recommendation

Most school discipline policies provide only the bare minimum of protection for the due process rights of parents and students. This has resulted in a breakdown of trust between schools and the communities they serve. To restore that trust, and ensure correct results in disciplinary proceedings, policies should include strong safeguards such as parental notification, disciplinary hearings, appeals processes, and other due process rights.

There should be utmost respect for:

Parents’/guardians’ right to be immediately notified when their child faces disciplinary action;

Students’ right to a fair hearing before being suspended, expelled, or referred to an alternative school

Students’ right to appeal suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to alternative schools. Pros

Notification of parents and inclusion of them in the disciplinary process will help to restore trust between the parents and school system.

Student’s due process rights will be protected. Cons

There may be a delay in processing discipline infractions at the school level.



Page | 180

*For purposes of this section, a "serious violation" means a violation of a School Board policy or compulsory school attendance requirements when such violation could result in a. the student's suspension or expulsion; b. the notification of law enforcement; or c. the filing of a court petition, whether or not the school administration has imposed such disciplinary action or filed a petition.” 1.http://www.fccpta.org/ParentNotification

Page | 181

Recommendation 4.5: Ongoing Education

INCORPORATED: Into Recommendation 2.7; see complete text below

FCPS must provide educational services to all students’ that are in a suspended status and are out of school. School staff is to make every effort to keep all suspended students connected academically to the school.

We expect that schools will maintain an educational connection to each student during the term of the suspension or expulsion in order that the student can return to school on track and achieve.

Educational services should include:

Daily classroom work, corrected and returned to the student.

Posting assignments to black board and daily presentations.

At least one staff person assigned to be the liaison between teachers and the various students on out of school suspension.


Data and researchers have shown that out of school suspension does not solve the discipline issue. Current evidence nationally, shows that on track graduation rates are dropping for those kids.

In prior years, students were not connected to school or encouraged to maintain their studies. Hearing and appeals could delay the process of re-admittance to a school and students could be not receiving instruction for weeks.

With the many advances in technology available today each school should explore on line learning, live feeds from classrooms or develop curriculum aligned podcasts for a student to view classes while he/she is at home on a suspension.

Every student who stays in school and graduates, college and career ready, adds to the health and wealth of society and improves the global competitiveness of this country. FCPS is committed to providing all our students with an education that will make them college and career ready Pros

Increase graduation rate Student maintains involvement with school Cons

Increase workload on school administrators Impact on Disproportionality


1.http://www.fcps.edu/dss/ips/srr/committee/resources/sections/documents/samples/Report_Advancemen

t%20Project_Model%20Policy_2011.pdf

2.http://www.kyrene.org/Page/18121

Page | 182

Recommendation 5.12: Expansion of Out-of-School Support Program

WITHDRAWN: Similar to Recommendation 2.7

Page | 183

Recommendation 5.18: Establishing Limits on Illegal Drugs Being Brought to School


The School Board should set a limit on the amount of marijuana (or other drugs that would still constitute a misdemeanor) a student may bring to school while still being permitted to participate in the AOD seminar in lieu of suspension or other disciplinary action. The committee recommends the School Board still embrace the concept of a second chance, but as written, the previously approved “Second Chance Program” recommendation does not limit the amount of marijuana, or other illegal drugs (unless the possession of the drug represents a felony), a student can bring to school and still be eligible to attend the AOD seminar in lieu of suspension or other disciplinary action.


The distribution, or possession with intent to distribute, of up to 14 grams (one half-ounce) of marijuana in the community constitutes a Class I misdemeanor under the Virginia Criminal Code.

The simple possession of any amount of marijuana at school or in the community constitutes a misdemeanor under the Virginia Criminal Code.

This recommendation appears fully consistent with the Arlington County Public Schools current practice, but limits the amount of marijuana a student can bring to school to only 14 grams, thus it is somewhat more restrictive than the Arlington County approach.

In the spirit of giving students a “second chance,” the SR&R committee feels that, similar to Arlington County’s approach, a student’s first time documented possession of illegal drugs at school that constitutes only a misdemeanor offense under the Virginia Criminal Code should not result in that student’s suspension from school.

In the Common Application for undergraduate admission utilized by more than 400 post-secondary academic institutions, students are asked to report whether they have been suspended from school. Currently, students who bring up to 14 grams of marijuana to school are suspended with a recommendation for expulsion, thus jeopardizing their acceptance to the college of their choice. If this recommendation is adopted by the School Board, an FCPS student (with no other suspension) who brings up to 14 grams of marijuana to school will be able to answer no to the common application question of whether he/she has ever been suspended from school.

Pros

FCPS students will not feel compelled to self-report suspensions when applying to college, thus making them more desirable candidates for acceptance than those who engage in similar misconduct in other jurisdictions, and thereby enhancing their ability to be admitted to the college of their choice.

FCPS has been criticized for a lack of transparency and for making the SR&R too difficult to understand. This recommendation will more clearly explain to students and parents, in plain English, what behavior would constitute a student’s eligibility for attending the AOD seminar in lieu of being suspended from school -- as opposed to the “misdemeanor” criminal standard used in the Arlington County Public Schools policy.

Affected students would spend less time out of school, and possibly unsupervised during the school day, than they would if suspended from school.

Page | 184

Cons

After the School Board voted to change the policy related to student’s bringing prescription medication to school, the number of students found to have brought prescription medication increased significantly. As such, this proposal could result in more students bringing illegal drugs to school.

The proposal could result in more FCPS students being exposed to illegal drugs at school. This proposal could result in more students using illegal drugs at school, and attending

classes under the influence. This could be detrimental to their education and to the education of others in their classes.

This proposal could inadvertently send the message to students that it is appropriate, or acceptable, for them to bring illegal drugs to school.

This proposal seems to be in conflict with Virginia Code, which mandates that a student bringing marijuana to school (or to a school-sponsored activity) be expelled from a school system for 365 calendar days unless the School Board or Division Superintendent find special circumstances.

As written, this opportunity would not be available for students who bring substances of abuse to school that do not constitute a criminal charge (e.g. Salvia, synthetic drugs not yet classified as illegal drugs, all abused OTC drugs, et al). Rather, only students who bring substances of abuse that represent a misdemeanor under Virginia Criminal Code would be eligible for the AOD seminar in lieu of suspension.

References

Common Application - https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/default.aspx Virginia Criminal Code for marijuana distribution offenses http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+coh+18.2-248.1+700460 Virginia Criminal Code for marijuana possession offenses http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+coh+18.2-250.1+500284 Virginia Code on bringing drugs to school http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+coh+22.1-277.08+500037 Virginia Code definition of expulsion http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+22.1-276.01 FCPS Office of Professional Development and Accountability Annual Discipline Analysis Report http://www.fcps.edu/pla/ope/docs/Discipline/disip_year1_full_report.pdf

https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/default.aspx

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+coh+18.2-248.1+700460






http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+22.1-276.01

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+22.1-276.01

http://www.fcps.edu/pla/ope/docs/Discipline/disip_year1_full_report.pdf

Page | 185

Minority Opinion

The ad-hoc committee has recommended that the School Board adopt the “Second Chance” program implemented by Arlington County. Under that recommendation (4-2), a student would be eligible for a second chance if their drug misconduct constitutes a misdemeanor under criminal code. This recommendation seeks to establish a limit on the amount of illegal drugs a student brings to school.

FCPS has been criticized for a lack of transparency and for making the SR&R too difficult to understand. This recommendation more clearly explains to students and parents, in plain language, what behavior would constitute a student’s eligibility for attending the AOD seminar in lieu of being suspended from school -- as opposed to the “misdemeanor” criminal standard parents, students, and teachers may not fully understand. Further, in Virginia, the simple possession of any amount of marijuana on school property or in the community constitutes a misdemeanor. As such, under the “Second Chance” recommendation, a student can bring an unlimited amount of marijuana to school (assuming no other evidence related to distribution is found) and be eligible for the program.

We are concerned that allowing students to bring illegal drugs to school with only minimal possible discipline consequences could send the message to students that it is acceptable for illegal drugs to be in school. In 2011, the School Board voted to allow principals to impose a lesser, or no, disciplinary sanction when a student brought his/her own prescription medication to school. According to one of the Q&A’s from members of this committee—http://www.fcps.edu/dss/ips/srr/committee/resources/sections/QandA.shtml—the incidences of students bringing prescription medication to school has more than doubled since that change. It is worrisome that the School Board would implement the second chance program, especially if no clear limit is established on the amount of marijuana or other illegal drugs a student brings to school.

http://www.fcps.edu/dss/ips/srr/committee/resources/sections/QandA.shtml

Page | 186

APPENDIX I Fairfax County School Board

AD HOC ADVISIORY COMMITTEE ON STUDENT RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES

Recommendation Status Min. Opinion

Vote Date

$$

1.1 Language & Tone A 2/20/13

1.2 Accessibility of SR&R Document A 2/20/13

1.3 Readability and Language AA 2/20/13

1.4 Balance of SR&R Document for All Target Audiences AA 3/13/13

1.5 Ongoing Consultation and Collaboration AA 3/13/13

1.6 Administrators and Teachers Review Revised Handbook AA 3/13/13

2.1 School Administrator Discretion AA 3/13/13

2.2 Range of Responses AA 2/20/13

2.3 School Discipline Plan A X 2/20/13

2.4 Language and Philosophy I

2.5 Positive Behavioral Approach AA 3/11/13 ?

2.6 In-School Academic Support AA 3/11/13 ?

2.7 Suspension with Support AA 3/11/13 ?

2.8 School Transfer Support AA 2/20/13 ?

2.9 Attendance Task Force A 2/20/13

2.10 Literacy Task Force A 3/13/13

3.1 Identify & Include in the SR&R Community Values Regarding Students with Disabilities

A 2/27/13

3.2 Publish Collected Data on Disproportionate Discipline A 2/27/13 ?

3.3 Establish an Advisory Committee to Study Disproportionalities in Discipline

A 2/27/13

3.4 Reduce Suspension/Expulsion of Students with Disabilities and Minority Students

AA 3/11/13

3.5 Establish a Separate SR&R Section on Students with Disabilities

A 3/11/13

3.6 Implement Existing Tools for the Prevention of Disciplinary Incidents

AA 3/11/13 ?

3.7 Ensure Consultation with the Student’s IEP Team A X 3/13/13

3.8 Accommodate Written Statements by Students with Disabilities

AA 3/13/13

3.9 Define Composition of the Manifestation Determination Review Team

F X 3/13/13

3.10 Delineate and Document All Factors for Manifestation Determination Reviews

A X 3/13/13

3.11 Communicate Manifestation Determination Review Finding and Rationale

AA 3/13/13

3.12 Modifying IEP Placements with the Hearings Office AA X 3/13/13

3.13 Evaluate a Student’s Ability to Comprehend the SR&R A 3/13/13

3.14 Expand Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, Restorative Justice and Peer Mediation

F X 2/27/13 ?

3.15 Provide Additional Parent Resources A 2/27/13

4.1 Parental Notification W 3/11/13

4.2 Second Chance Program A X 2/20/13

4.3 Discipline Liaison A 3/13/13 ?

4.4 Parent Notification of Student’s Disciplinary Record AA 3/13/13

4.5 Ongoing Education I 3/11/13

Page | 187

4.6 Attend Base School During Appeal A 3/11/13

4.7 Range of Consequences AA 2/27/13

4.8 Collaborative Discipline AA 3/13/13

4.9 Discipline Committee AA 3/13/13

4.10 Revise Definition of Parent AA 2/27/13

5.1 Alternative to Recommendations for Expulsion AA 2/27/13

5.2 In Lieu of Suspension A 2/27/13

5.3 School Board Timelines A 2/2/13

5.4 Appeal Placements A 3/11/13

5.5 Alternative Settings Within Schools or Pyramids AA 3/13/13 ?

5.6 Student Transportation to Alternative Settings A 2/27/13 ?

5.7 Packet A 3/13/13 ?

5.8 Hearing Attendance A 3/13/13 ?

5.9 AOD Seminar Expansion A 3/13/13 ?

5.10 AOD Transportation A 3/13/13 ?

5.11 Diversity Training AA 3/13/13 ?

5.12 Expansion of Out-of-School Support W 3/11/13 ?

5.13 Expediting Entry/Reentry Timelines A 3/11/13

5.14 Local Screening Referral for Students in the Discipline Process Timelines

A 3/11/13

5.15 Revisions to Teacher Removal of a Student from Class Notification to Parents Guidelines

A 3/13/13

5.16 Recommended Revisions to the Mandatory Disciplinary Sanctions in the Current SR&R

A 3/13/13

5.17 Revisions Related to the Myriad Issues that Fall Under the General Heading of Parent Permission/Notification

A X 3/11/13

5.18 Establishing Limits on Illegal Drugs Being Brought To School

F X 3/13/13

Key: A = Approved AA = Approved with Amendments F = Failed I = Incorporated in Another Recommendation W = Withdrawn x = Minority Opinion Submitted ? = May Have Funding Implications