Rockford Public Schools presents broad revisions to student code of conduct, schedules board vote

David Grama, director of student services for Rockford Public Schools, presented proposed districtwide revisions to the student code of conduct during the Committee of the Whole meeting, and told the board the changes will be brought to the regular board meeting for action in mid‑March.

The proposed revisions aim to align the code with Illinois statutes, tighten language for bullying and physical aggression, move most drug and alcohol violations back to higher‑level disciplinary codes, and expand non‑punitive interventions such as victim impact statements, restorative conferencing and referrals to community treatment providers.

Grama said the revisions come after multiple stakeholder feedback channels this year: anonymous staff surveys, visits to all 37 K–12 schools, six meetings of a parent advisory group, and two community listening sessions at Auburn and East high schools. He told the board administrators also used discipline and equity data to shape the changes.

Board president Pearson asked about availability of bullying investigation and advocate forms at each school; Grama confirmed bullying investigation forms are available in every school office and may be reported to any school adult. He said the district has a “very robust” and consistent process for documenting and investigating bullying and for reporting outcomes to families and the state.

Key proposed policy changes described by Grama and discussed by board members and staff include: - Drugs and alcohol: the district proposes restoring all alcohol‑ and drug‑related violations (including marijuana in any form) to the highest discipline level (level 4). Students and families would be offered an assessment; families that engage in assessment and supports could have students remain at their zone school under an educational intervention agreement (EIA). If the terms of the EIA are violated, placement at an alternative learning site is possible. - Bullying: definitions would be updated to emphasize ‘‘severe and persistent’’ language; Grama said the goal is to give administrators discretion to address incidents at the appropriate severity level. - Physical aggression: the district would remove low‑level physical‑aggression labels (levels 1 and 2) and treat fighting and planned, coordinated fights as higher‑level incidents (levels 3 or 4), while keeping administrator discretion about exclusionary discipline. - Damage/property language: the district would remove terms such as “vandalism” and “burglary” from code titles to reduce criminal connotation while retaining the underlying offense codes and dollar thresholds (e.g., <$500, >$500). - Disciplinary coding cleanup: redundant or overlapping codes (for example certain interference or gang‑related codes) were proposed for removal or consolidation. - Interventions and victim support: expansions include victim impact statements (to be used with supports), restorative conferencing and explicit options for escorts or safety plans for victims; Grama said those practices were developed in consultation with the district MTSS (Multi‑Tiered System of Supports) team.

Board members pressed for more data on frequency and outcomes: Miss McCall requested data about recurrence of bullying incidents and whether interventions reduced reoffending; Grama agreed to pull the metrics and circulate them via the superintendent's update. Miss McCall and others also asked for comparisons to other districts and states that have legalized marijuana; Grama and Superintendent Jared Gallagher committed to researching external models and providing local prevalence data.

Several board members raised capacity concerns for expanded assessment and treatment referrals. Grama said the district currently contracts with Rosecrans behavioral health staff (eight full‑time BHSAP positions serving several high schools and middle schools) and that those staff have a maximum caseload (described in the meeting as roughly 60 students per person). Board members and administrators acknowledged that raising the number of offenses treated as level 4 would increase demand for assessments and services and urged alignment of staffing and budgeting with any policy change.

Administrators told the board that discipline data and interventions are documented in the Panorama platform so staff can access a student’s intervention history. Grama also reported low turnout at the two community listening sessions (eight attendees at Auburn, five at East) and credited weather for lower attendance.

No formal motion or vote occurred during the committee meeting; Grama said the proposed redline will appear on the regular board meeting agenda for a vote in March.

The presentation included detailed matrices and redline language made available to board members; administrators said they will revise some language based on questions raised (for example clarifying whether escorts should be listed as an intervention for victims as well as a corrective strategy for accused students).

The board asked that the district provide follow‑up materials before the vote: school‑ and district‑level bullying repeat‑offender data, prevalence estimates of student marijuana exposure across schools, and a staffing assessment that shows whether Rosecrans and MTSS staffing can meet any increased assessment demand.

Board president Pearson and other members also requested clearer, multilingual communications for families (online audio translations and web content that is directly translatable rather than embedded PDFs) and suggested targeted social media “media bursts” to explain common discipline scenarios and supports.

Grama closed by thanking the board and said the administration looks forward to the formal vote at the regular meeting. The committee took no formal action at this session.