The Battle Ground School District Board of Directors on Oct. 13 voted to table proposed revisions to Policy 3241, the district's student-discipline policy, after a lengthy presentation and board discussion over new terminology and how the rules would be implemented at school sites.

Tamara Sheets, a district staff member presenting the updates, said the changes were prompted by state rulemaking and by guidance circulated by the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. “I am here asking for approval of the revision of policy 03/1941, student discipline,” Sheets said, summarizing the timeline of emergency rules and later revisions made by OSPI and WASDA that the district used as the basis for its draft.

The draft distinguishes corrective actions (nondisciplinary steps intended to prevent recurrence), discretionary discipline (lower-level responses where administrators have options), and non‑discretionary discipline (mandatory responses for very serious violations). Sheets told the board the revised rules now limit long‑term suspension to cases where a student presents an “imminent threat of danger,” and that long‑term suspension or expulsion both now end at the close of the school year (expulsions no longer carry automatically into a subsequent year beyond specified limits). She also described the state and federal reporting obligation to provide disaggregated discipline data by race, income status and other subgroups and said that reporting can trigger state follow-up if disproportionality is detected.

Several board members pressed for clarity about wording and local implementation. Director Debbie Johnson said she was concerned with a clause that used the phrase “implementing culturally responsive discretionary and nondiscretionary discipline,” and asked what “culturally responsive” would mean in practice. “The thing for me that's got me wondering is if you have a white student and you have a student of a different race or ethnicity, does this say—how is that different?” Johnson asked. She expressed unease about how fairness, equity and culture-based considerations would be applied by building administrators.

Other trustees and staff sought to clarify that the matrix of responses in the draft is intended to provide consistent “bumpers” across the district so administrators apply discipline within defined ranges, while also allowing administrators to address unique student needs after investigating context. Sheets and other staff explained that the intent is to prevent disproportionate disciplinary outcomes and to preserve students’ access to learning even when they are removed from class.

After comments from multiple trustees and members of the public echoing concerns about terminology and implementation, Director Debbie Johnson moved to table the revision and bring back revisions for further review; the board voted to table the item and requested revised language and additional public input. The motion to table and return a revised draft to the board at its Oct. 27 meeting passed by a 4–0 roll-call vote.

What this means going forward: staff will redraft the policy language (the board asked staff to clarify or remove ambiguous phrases, and to surface the related administrative procedures for review) and return the revised policy for board consideration at the Oct. 27 work session. Board members repeatedly emphasized they wanted clearer, simpler language and the district’s procedures and matrices to be consistent and visible to the public before any final vote.

The discussion drew on earlier OSPI emergency rulemaking and WASDA model language; Sheets said the district received revised guidance Aug. 25 and worked to align the local draft to that guidance before presenting it. The board did not adopt the policy at this meeting.

Votes at the meeting on this agenda item were procedural: the board motioned to table the Policy 3241 revision and set a return date of Oct. 27. Outcome: tabled.